Oddbean new post about login | logout If being a whole-coiner gives you social status, that's actually an argument against Bitcoin. 🤔 Exchange one group of cantillionaires for another.
Why should we all work hard, to keep those people rich, with no hope of ever being that rich ourselves, regardless of effort or talent?
Being a whole coiner is nothing when you consider there are still people out there with thousands of coins. I used to have a similar attitude towards people who just stack and don't provide anything else to the community. As I saw it they were waiting to get rich off the backs of the hard work of a smaller group of people who were actually putting in the work to build the ecosystem. To some extent I still feel that way, but these days every sat stacked is a sat that BlackRock don't get, so there's that.
Even being a whole-coiner is out of reach, for almost everyone in the planet, even if they started stacking years ago. Monetary gentrification is endemic to Bitcoin.
There will soon be a new class of Asian and White rich people, who will simply be a subset of the previous class of rich people, with a couple newbies and three dudes in Africa and South America added in for diversity. Peter Schiff will be a whole-coiner. Abdul from Timbuktu won't. Period. No question mark.
Not sure that's the case, having and keeping wealth are different things, most people who get wealthier from bitcoins rise will exchange some or much of that coin to buy the life they want, even BlackRock holding it isn't that big a deal, they'll have to use it eventually. Eventually wealth will find it's way to people who produce value. There's always going to be a disparity between the wealthiest and poorest in society though. Bitcoin won't fix that.
Exactly. There will always be wealth inequality. It is not our problem to solve. Lack of wealth is not the problem for poor people. Lack of ways to be wealthy is the problem. The only way you can solve for wealth equality is by providing value to those people in return for money. By educating them. Bitcoin doesn't solve that. It solves a different problem. A problem where even if you're wealthy, you're becoming poorer and poorer over time because of the system you are living in. Poorer by inflation, poorer by your tax hungry govt that spends in an increasingly inefficient manner.
Goals. Nothing wrong with aiming for a goal when it is sound money. I have worked hard in the fiat mines to stack sats, it’s about setting an achievable goal to commit to a level of savings that won’t be debased. That could be 100,000 sats or a million sats. What happens though is when you hit your goals it drives you on to create savings for your family. That is an amazing feeling with all the fiat monetary inflation and theft of our time and energy
its hard to avoid wealth inequality but we sure as hell shouldn't accept people using their wealth to bend rules in their favour
They will have so much money that they can purchase everything in existence and then charge us all rent in perpetuity.
same as it ever was...
Bitcoin doesn't fix inequality, it fixes debasement.
and also having greater share of ownership of bitcoin doesn't mean greater say in network governance. economic nodes govern the system
If we assign social value to whole-coinerism (I have no idea if it does or will carry a social value) then it's still not a new cantillionaire class because they can't use that status to create more Bitcoin.
You don't have to create more Bitcoin to be a cantillionaire because your wealth rises automatically, as the supply narrows and then shrinks. It works in reverse, but it's still a first-to-the-trough feeding system.
It doesn't rise or narrow for you any more or less than anyone else. Whether you have 1 ₿ or 0.1 ₿, obtaining more would depend on work and risk. The only argument here that makes sense is saying that someone has obtained Bitcoin "illicitly" by benefiting from printed fiat to obtain Bitcoin, but you can also put that down to intelligence. They probably would have been capable of doing the same if starting from zero.
Many people aren't buying Bitcoin with strong fiat. The person buying 3k Euros worth of Bitcoin on a lark, didn't take on more risk or exert more effort than the one buying 3k Turkish Lira or Zimbabwe Dollars worth. They're just purchasing with a stronger currency.
Don't get me wrong. Still smart to convert those Liras to Sats. Just saying that the rich will always be among us, and it will continue to mostly be an artefact of environment, ancestry, and chance. Bitcoin might actually make that worse, in the short to medium term, as there is no new supply of money to access and the hodlers depress velocity.
Bitcoin is a commodity and some people simply have more purchasing power because of their currency. Bitcoin doesn't redistribute wealth. It allows for wealth conservation. You can only conserve what you already have.
Exactly. That's essentially the caveat I mentioned just extended internationally. I guess you can argue that this is "being close to the money printer". Remains true that once everything is Bitcoin there's no more cantillionaire effect. Once everyone is competing, those with more Bitcoin who don't produce bleed wealth.
Yes, long-term there might be some realignment. Although, they can use their Bitcoin to skew markets or capture income-generating assets, to prevent competition from rising and ensure their permanent superiority. I doubt the Rothschilds will spend their Bitcoin on slot machines in Vegas.
Maintaining ownership of income generating assets and keeping them productive over time involves work and taking risks to adapt them to changing times. If they can do that, then they ought to be the ones doing it. Most assets are maintained (the productiveness of, the ownership of) today with fiat subsidies.
You can just own assets and demand rents. I guess you would have to build armies to protect your rents, which is effort, but probably not very productive. It'll be like in the medieval ages, under the gold standard, where people who owner the gold make the rules and demand tolls through gatekeeping and soldiers.
I think that's only possible when you have an illiterate peasantry without the tools necessary to mass organize and shoot you.
Yes. Which is why I think Bitcoin will lead to peasant organisation through government and laws.
Which means we always seem to come to a system that's about 50% better than now, rather than 100%.
Bitcoin is facilitating a movement of wealth and power, not a change of wealth and power. The future Rothchilds, Goldman-Sachs, Grosvenor’s are Bitcoin whales right now. If all 8 billion people wanted L1 Bitcoin, it would take nearly 40 years for those transactions to clear the mempool, so most people will never hold Bitcoin and will have to “trust” Bitcoin L1 holders to issue them tokens (such as ETFs) or custodial Lightning. It’s the same game, with new players.
I'm arguing that it'll mostly be the same players because they have enough other wealth (including hard assets, not just fiat), that they can FOMO in, even at atrocious prices. Why would a Rothschild not buy Bitcoin at €1 million? That's peanuts, when you're a zillionaire.
Agreed, however Bitcoin is a disruptive technology and not everybody is able to accept it. I think some old guard will jump on the Bitcoin wagon, but most won’t. Also, Bitcoin will not go up for ever. 21M coins at $20M nearly equals the entire wealth of the world ($454T) This halving will be a full NGU event, I don’t believe the next halving will be a full NGU event. Time is running out, despite the narrative of we are still early. Once the price settles, probably around $5M a coin, then it will start becoming adopted as a currency, not just an asset.
Okay, but I'd bet fiat that many of those people already own Bitcoin or want to buy, and are just talking down the price.
Well isn't it up to you if you want to give some status to someone for owning something 🤔
The status will come automatically because they will be the bankers. They have the majority of the money and get to decide who gets some.
If we end up situation like that, Bitcoin has failed.
Most people won't be able to do on-chain transactions. It's probably already that way, in fact. Even if you have sats, you need someone to help you move them, and they can charge a fee.
That's simply not true. Everybody who''s able to have access to computer or mobile phone is "able" to do on-chain transactions, that's the whole point. I understand you mean that not everybody can afford to do transact on-chain, but there's really importany nuance here. Not affording to do something it's very different than "being able" to do something.
The culture could change somewhat though. Would most Bitcoiners readily advertise?
Bitcoiners are not Cantillionaires. They’re not benefiting from having access to new money entering the economy first, they’re benefiting from information asymmetry.
Simply knowing that Bitcoin exists and wanting some, doesn't give you access. You need to mine it or purchase it from someone else.
Right, and Cantillionaires don’t have to do either - they just need to be politically connected to those privileged few who give themselves the right to print new money into existence and gain first access to it. How their benefit from the economic system is derived is why they are called Cantillionaires. The label doesn’t apply to Bitcoiners.
If they just take freshly-minted fiat and use it to buy up Bitcoin, how is that different than them taking it to buy gold, land, oil futures, or shares? Like Michael Saylor says, instead of using access to cheap credit to buy Apple shares, you use it to buy Bitcoin.
It’s not. You could call Saylor a Cantillionaire and it would be accurate - he is one of the privileged few who can print new money into existence with MSTR’s access to capital debt markets. Saylor is not a Bitcoiner, he’s a BitcoinBug in it for himself. nostr:note144au605mp6kvgsknnvuxk7stl0yyx0mrjzqhphj2ug94tusgaapsq46a9m Bitcoiners have to provide value to others to either receive Bitcoin payments or fiat money which they exchange for Bitcoin (or mine it). The benefit they are deriving from Bitcoin is not due to their political connections or privileged position, it’s from their access to information which is never uniform in any market.
In fiat world, when the upper class make a purchase their purchasing power doesn't decrease at all. The social position of the peasant craftsman doesn't improve at all by doing work for them. In the future we may see Hodlers, even ones who are currently among the good guys, attempt to offer an inflationary token to latecoiners. The hodl ideology could lead to this. Never spend real Bitcoin, that's your generational wealth. Same worldview as the current elites. This is why we don't just need Bitcoin, we need Christ
Amen. But I am also positing that Bitcoin deflation means you can spend it slowly, and maintain your purchasing power. You just need to spend it in line with the shrinking of the supply.
Not such a bad incentive, if the loser is he who's appetite exceeds the growth around him.
2. Plus, the value of those sats doesn't stop growing just because they've gone into lower class hands.
The way I see it, in hyperbitconized world the stakes are extremely high 🚬 Right now if Im an owner of huge company that employs thousands of people, If I make bad decisions I will be bailed out. Example is Lufhansa during covid. And during covid every billionaire got sooo much richer, while the public got poorer in real terms. How bitcoin changes the game? When #Bitcoin is seen as multiple times better Investment than everything else and when it becomes common knowledge that the risk of keeping your money in anything other Bitcoin is massively higher, nobody will want to exchange Bitcoin for fiat. Fast forward few years, Bitcoin price is boring and extremely stable. So at that point only exchanging Bitcoin for goods, services (cuz you have to) or investing it in sound businesses will make sense. At that point if your business collapses, you lost your Bitcoin, its gone. Depending of the size of investment lost, depends how fucked you are. Governments even if they own some Bitcoin, they wouldn’t be able to bail you out, they won’t have Bitcoin to spare for you. They will lose voters and their own sits, due to inability to print Bitcoin and appease the public. So in such world it doesn’t matter how big of a whale you are, if you lose your Bitcoin, nobody can help you out, without risking their own stack. Governments and businessmen alike. Only people who are the best at producing value will be able to stay on top of the billionaire list. Not many will. The previous fiat billionaires would be the first ones to get wiped out imo.
That doesn't seem to the case because Fiat rich are buying #bitcoin .. because they are first to get informed .. btw being Fiat rich ain't a crime As for bail out, yes they will be there . If a service is important to people and it gets stymied because of reasons beyond its control ( for example theft ) , tax payers would like to bail it out .. oh yes ..you will still pay taxes in Bitcoin economy.. because you don't want to build roads your self , neither you want to rebuild the bridges .. and you do want children to go to school ..to learn about Bitcoin :-)
I dont agree fiat rich ignored Bitcoin many years. Right now we are very early and fiat rich dont have to buy in yet tbh. 14 months ago $20k would buy you whole coin. Very affordable. If you studied Bitcoin for many years you are still well position to make better decisions than fiat rich. Many will sell at 100k and buy in at higher price. I see different taxes in different countries/regions as governments will try to lure you in with best offer. If Bitcoin wins and we will have more robust layer 2s, nobody will want to sell anything for anything else than Bitcoin. Governments wouldn’t be able to afford bailing you out. Maybe you get a loan from someone, maybe you go bust. Either way no free riding. No staying on top of the ladder without producing value.
Having more wealth than someone else isn't immoral. Stealing wealth from others is. There is a HUDGE difference. If your pro communism then Bitcoin is not for you.
Exactly. The Cantillon effect is not based on wealth inequality, it’s based on unequal access to newly printed money
There is no cantillionair effect with bitcoin. If you have a lot of bitcoin, you will be Fiat rich but anyone with bitcoin will be over time, but in a bitcoin only world having a lot of bitcoin will only last for so long, you will have to continue to provide value to get btc.
During inflationary periods, bitcoin serves all users. During deflationary periods, bitcoin serves all usurers. A tale as old as time<
Yes, these remote villages maintain some vestiges of feudalism. Some of the older people are still emotionally scarred by the experience, and others left and moved to America. Hearing their stories, growing up, is why I am so cynical. And that was just the income disparity of one person owning a large farm and the other being a servant.