Bitcoin will very likely become an asset that creates strong disparities between people in the future. That is why I think this is an interesting moment to speak from the perspective of someone who never had the opportunity to build a personal Bitcoin reserve for the long term.
I have actually used Bitcoin to pay for products I wanted back when it was still accepted as a payment method. Some people may think it was foolish not to keep those coins until they became much more valuable. But that was never my intention at the time. I don’t spend much time regretting it, and I don’t consider myself driven by jealousy.
That said, the perspective of someone who is outside the Bitcoin economy naturally gives me a different way of looking at its future.
I believe this is a particularly interesting moment to share that perspective.
I think monetary inequality could become increasingly entrenched over the long term because of Bitcoin. Not necessarily because Bitcoin itself is unfair, but because the distribution of Bitcoin ownership is already highly concentrated, and the ability to accumulate it depends heavily on when and with what resources someone enters the market.
I also think we should ask an uncomfortable question:
At what point does accumulation stop strengthening the ecosystem and start limiting its ability to distribute ownership more broadly?
Take Strategy as an example.
The largest Bitcoin holders and institutional investors have a clear interest in maintaining the value of their holdings. But I wonder whether, at a certain scale, constantly accumulating more Bitcoin remains the most constructive strategy for the ecosystem as a whole.
The largest holders could potentially benefit from making more Bitcoin available to new participants rather than continuously competing for an ever-larger share of the existing supply.
This is not an argument against Bitcoin, nor against large holders.
It is an argument about competition.
If a race has fewer and fewer competitors because the largest participants keep accumulating more of the available supply, then eventually the nature of the race changes.
Who exactly are the largest holders trying to beat in the accumulation race?
For Bitcoin to remain a healthy and competitive ecosystem, there needs to be enough opportunity for new participants to enter it and meaningfully own a share of it.
I am saying this from a very unusual position: I am almost completely out of that race.
My first serious attempt to build a personal Bitcoin reserve for the future stopped abruptly because of financial constraints. I currently own zero Bitcoin, and I do not expect to buy any in the near future simply because I don’t have the financial means to do so.
I would like to be able to build such a reserve someday.
I currently cannot.
That gives me no investor bias, but it also gives me a very different perspective from someone who is already heavily invested.
This is why I think large holders should consider something beyond the nominal fiat value of their holdings.
If the objective becomes nothing more than accumulating an increasingly large amount of monetary value on paper, without considering who is still able to participate, then the ecosystem may eventually become less dynamic.
Imagine, for example, if Strategy deliberately stopped accumulating Bitcoin and instead sold part of its holdings for a period of time, even if that went against the prevailing market trend and even if the fiat value of Bitcoin continued to rise over the following months.
I am not claiming that this would necessarily increase Bitcoin’s price.
I am arguing that broader distribution of ownership could strengthen the long-term resilience and participation of the ecosystem.
In my personal view, Bitcoin may have recently established a significant long-term valuation floor. But I don’t think the next stage should be defined only by how much the largest holders can accumulate.
The bigger question is whether Bitcoin can continue to create room for people who have not yet had the opportunity to participate.
I am one of those people.
And that is precisely why I think this perspective deserves to be heard.
submitted by /u/TerribleSir9926
[link] [comments]
