in

CMV: The fact that hodlers with <10BTC only hold 13.9% of supply is a big hurdle for mass adoption of BTC.

Bitcoin Magazine tweeted (and then deleted) a tweet that said “Hodlers with < 10 #Bitcoin now hold a collective 13.9% of supply. BTFD ⚡️”

While that share has been increasing, with the culture of HODL no matter what, it is hard to envision it ever getting to a point where BTC will be seen to be widely distributed enough to be any different than the current distribution of “traditional” wealth. If Michael Saylor and a handful of others (as it relates to the world’s population) hold all of the cards, why would anyone want to play the game?

Google search preview of deleted tweet: https://imgur.com/a/phdRwuE

Link to deleted tweet: https://twitter.com/bitcoinmagazine/status/1441893769159249920

EDIT: This is not to say gold, fiat, or something else are better alternatives to BTC. Just that this statistic could slow or stagnate mass adoption as it makes BTC look less attractive. I think pretty much all crypto faces this same problem.



View Reddit by ICanNeverThinkOfOneView Source

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings

18 Comments

  1. I don’t believe that figure for a second – not only is it much too low, it’s not something that’s knowable precisely, so to pretend you have the figure to a tenth of one percent is a clear sign it’s BS. Presumably why it was deleted.

    But regardless, the innovation with Bitcoin is not that rich people don’t hold lots of it, but rather that rich people cannot finagle their way into controlling how much new currency is issued, and to whom.

    No more chancellors to bail out banks/socialize rich people’s losses, in other words.

  2. MSTR is 23% owned by Michael Saylor, its a PLC not a LTD, the remainder is owned collectively by a huge number of people. Addresses with <10 BTC hold 14% of the supply, but large chunks of the remaining supply are held by exchanges on behalf of huge numbers of people, or GBTC on behalf of huge numbers of people, or institutional investors on behalf of many many people, or the Swiss or Canadian Bitcoin ETFs, or custodial bitcoin wallets, or Mt Gox creditors, or lost. I could put this better if I had time but, food for thought.

  3. This is nonsensical. You forget the amount of people that are oppressed that will adopt bitcoin.what matters to them is that they are able to get some and that it works. It doesn’t matter how much you hold when this orange beast is going to eat the ENTIRE financial system. If you’re looking to turn a profit then yeah how much you have will matter to you. When you can’t even save because your government keeps stealing from you then the amount you use doesn’t matter any more as long as you have a system in which you can use to transfer and store your value. Smaller and smaller denominations are going to be vastly more and more valuable as the orange pill keeps getting ingested. Nobody can hold bitcoin forever we all have to spend in order to survive and the whales that hold now will not be the whales for all eternity if they are not continually innovating or producing value.

  4. Putting aside whether that figure is accurate or not, my reaction to it was “that’s way higher than I’d have thought”.

    It’s money: I think it’s pretty much expected that most of it is in the hands of wealthy people and/or institutions.

    The attractive point of crypto is (IMHO) not that it would somehow change existing distribution of wealth. It is that it makes the “rules of the game” completely transparent and (modulo soft forks) immutable. The most fundamental example of which is the deterministic supply.

  5. The truth lies in the fact that Bitcoin is the inverse of the US Dollar. The Dollar is being printed in infinite numbers while Bitcoin is fixed to a defined supply.

    The wealthy 1% of the world control 75% of the worlds assets (or about that percentage) so the entire financial wealth of the world is in the hands of a few wealthy ballbusters.

    Bitcoin is not immune to this level of concentrated control and ownership. The question is whether you want to date a whore, or a slut. This is not a pure construct to wrestle with by any means of the iimagination.

    At the present inflation rate the dollar that you have stored at Wells Fargo, or Bank of America
    will be worth $0.00 in purchasing power in just under 8.5 years at the present rate of inflation (yes it’s running at 15%).

    The dollar is called a “currency” for a reason. You have to move it around (liike an electric curent). Otherwise, if it sits. It will lose its power.

    The best place for currency to sit is with Bitcoin.

  6. > why would anyone want to play the game?

    Well, millions of people already play the game, by that I mean that they don’t treat bitcoin as speculative asset but actual money they use for day-to-day transactions.

    The people in first world countries don’t need to use bitcoin as money just yet. Because they have fiat money and the infrastructure that works for them, at least for now. Also the fact that bitcoin is taxed unfairly compared to fiat makes it even less attractive to use.

    As for how wealth is distributed, nothing new under the sun. You can’t fight power laws.

  7. think about the incentives of a smoll fish DCAing with $100 a month because they don’t have more, vs a rich dude that dropped a couple mil on conbase cos his MBA classmates told him to.

    If you are rich already, you don’t have the same incentive to learn and be patient. Case in point: Ray Dalio, Raul Paul or even Elon fucking Tusk.

    Bitcoin doing 100x is not life changing to them, but a tax liability.

  8. The network is what’s important here. Everyone with access to the internet has access to the network. .01 usd buys 23 satoshi’s so anyone can feasible buy/hold/spend on the bitcoin network as long as they can access some form of exchange. In places where they have much less wealth, they transact with less satoshi’s. It solves problems and works everywhere. Reliable, unbiased money.

  9. Why would bitcoin be distributed differently than other forms of wealth?

    Bitcoin will do the opposite of that. It will concentrate wealth harder because you dont have to risk it on business to avoid inflation. You can just keep it in cold storage and never spend it. Wealth can last 100s of years easily now.

    Thats what makes is so good. Finally governments and the poor will learn their place.

  10. How is that different than stocks or anything else. In general 1% owns 99% of the wealth so in comparison btc is better. Only way to improve that is for people to stop being so paperhanded and spread the word.

  11. With hard money like bitcoin the distribution isn’t a problem. In the fiat world having a lot of money automatically qualifies you to easily make more because banks will loan you money for free and you can use that loaned money to buy assets which will appreciate.

    It doesn’t matter if you have 100 or 1000 BTC. Nobody in their right mind is going to loan you any more bitcoin.

    When fiat evaporates so too do the problems of the fiat world.

  12. HODLing does nothing to promote Bitcoin as a currency, and if Bitcoin is not used as a currency, what is it good for, baseball cards?

    Bitcoin’s value comes from its acceptance as money. Let’s start using it that way.

What do you think?

Ripple Price Prediction

XRP/USD Corrects Below $1.00 Level

Check and Mate: Grandmaster Magnus Carlsen to play for NFT trophy (Build on ETH)

Check and Mate: Grandmaster Magnus Carlsen to play for NFT trophy (Build on ETH)