Joules on Nostr: Maxis try to explain away the inequality gap that is *certain* to occur by saying ...
Maxis try to explain away the inequality gap that is *certain* to occur by saying that the distribution curve will naturally flatten over time. I don't think this is the case. 1-2 million people in the world will own 1+ bitcoin, ever. These people will be the top .015%. They won't possibly be able to spend it all. You have to be utterly naïve to believe they will donate it. The network is decentralized, but the wealth will be, on a broad scale, very centralized. This is why proof of work is so important in comparison to proof of stake.
"...where 99% of the population can't obtain the one thing of value" is a bit of a grim outlook on humanity. I believe that more than 1/100 people on the planet can provide something of value.
Optimistically, maybe only 3 in 10 people will be incapable of providing a skill to the market that is worthy of exchanging for sats (or, as you called it, "the one thing of value"). The real question you're asking, is what do we do with these people? Do we have a welfare state that will support these people? Perhaps in a deflationary environment, there wouldn't be an incentive to not level yourself up and become useful.
Living on a bitcoin standard will not be a utopia, and we shouldn't brand it as such. Bitcoin is truly a free market currency. In the same way that western capitalism favors those who competently act on their ideas the quickest, Bitcoin will favor those who get it the earliest. There WILL be losers, but only in a relative sense. I got here 4 years ago, so I will likely be better off than the person who figures it out 4 years from now. So if they compare themselves to me, I'm better off. But at the end of the day, the prices of all good forever fall against bitcoin. So in the long run, everyone is better off in the grand scheme of things.
In summary, you raise a solid point about the inequity of the distribution. The zealots will try to convince you that the distribution will flatten over time, but it's obviously incredibly unlikely.
"...where 99% of the population can't obtain the one thing of value" is a bit of a grim outlook on humanity. I believe that more than 1/100 people on the planet can provide something of value.
Optimistically, maybe only 3 in 10 people will be incapable of providing a skill to the market that is worthy of exchanging for sats (or, as you called it, "the one thing of value"). The real question you're asking, is what do we do with these people? Do we have a welfare state that will support these people? Perhaps in a deflationary environment, there wouldn't be an incentive to not level yourself up and become useful.
Living on a bitcoin standard will not be a utopia, and we shouldn't brand it as such. Bitcoin is truly a free market currency. In the same way that western capitalism favors those who competently act on their ideas the quickest, Bitcoin will favor those who get it the earliest. There WILL be losers, but only in a relative sense. I got here 4 years ago, so I will likely be better off than the person who figures it out 4 years from now. So if they compare themselves to me, I'm better off. But at the end of the day, the prices of all good forever fall against bitcoin. So in the long run, everyone is better off in the grand scheme of things.
In summary, you raise a solid point about the inequity of the distribution. The zealots will try to convince you that the distribution will flatten over time, but it's obviously incredibly unlikely.