The Broken Mirage of the Fiat Middle Class The “middle class” that marked the second half of the 20th century was an exceptional product of a bygone era. Its consolidation rested on three pillars: Accessible and cheap credit. Families could take out mortgages on reasonable terms and aspire to home ownership. Job stability. With relatively secure jobs and rising wages, social mobility seemed achievable. The social contract of the welfare state. Saving in national currency, guaranteed pensions, and promises of a dignified retirement. Today those pillars are in ruins. Inflation erodes any capacity to save; housing has mutated into a financial asset inaccessible to most; personal and state debt is no longer an exception but the norm; and state pensions are faltering on an unsustainable model. The middle class has ceased to be a social elevator. At best, it has become a waiting room on the way to precariousness.

Bitcoin: The New Elevator… For Those Who Manage to Get On in Time In this context, Bitcoin appears. A network based on immutable rules, offering something the fiat system cannot: absolute scarcity and resistance to political manipulation. For those who understand and act in time, Bitcoin is a new social elevator: It protects against inflation. It allows saving without relying on banks or governments. It multiplies value over time thanks to its deflationary nature. But here comes the uncomfortable question: what about those who don’t make it? In 2025, according to Glassnode and Gemini, 216 centralized entities —including exchanges and ETFs— control around 30% of Bitcoin’s supply. At the same time, small investors have increased their participation, absorbing more of the newly mined supply in recent years. This indicates a more equitable distribution compared to 2021, when 2% of entities controlled about 71.5% of the total. What for some is a stairway to sovereignty, for others may become an unscalable wall.

The Inclusive Promise vs. The Exclusionary Reality The official narrative insists: “Bitcoin is for everyone.” And technically, that’s true: Anyone can start with just a few satoshis. The network does not discriminate. No permission or intermediaries are required. The only essential thing is to control your keys. For that, the best option is to use a hardware wallet, which allows you to custody your BTC without depending on anyone. But the social reality is harsher: The majority of wallets hold less than 0.01 BTC, while only a minority have more than 1 BTC, according to BitInfoCharts and Glassnode. With Bitcoin around €99,000–124,000 in 2025, the economic barrier multiplies for newcomers. Financial education is still absent: we were taught to obey, not to understand money. The result is a radically fair system… but also ruthless. No bailouts, no central banks leveling inequalities. Those who don’t act will be left behind.

A New Aristocracy: From Land to Satoshis History resonates with irony.
In the past, feudal societies were dominated by those who inherited land, while the majority depended on daily labor to survive. In the future, we could see a parallel: A minority of hodlers with large holdings, able to live off collateral interest, inherit fortunes, and fund projects. A majority who never accumulated enough and must keep working in the fiat periphery or survive with marginal satoshis. The leap is not toward an egalitarian paradise, but toward a radical redistribution of power based on anticipation and action. Unlike feudalism, Bitcoin offers some mobility: anyone with internet access can open a wallet. However, with 20% of the supply estimated lost forever and increasing concentration in financial institutions, the gap could consolidate into a new digital aristocracy.

Comparison with the Fiat System In the fiat system, the top 1% controls approximately 50% of global wealth (Credit Suisse, 2021). Bitcoin, meanwhile, has a Gini coefficient estimated between 0.64 and 0.73. This shows inequality that is comparable or even greater, though with a key difference: the network imposes no entry barriers. The problem is not Bitcoin’s design but the lack of education and access to technology in large parts of the world. Without mass financial literacy, fiat’s inequality patterns could be replicated within the Bitcoin standard.

The Temporal Leap: A Structural Divide The example is clear: someone who bought 1 BTC in 2013 for just €100 is in another league compared to someone buying in 2025 at nearly €100,000. The difference is not anecdotal: it’s structural in a fixed-supply asset. While anyone can still buy satoshis, significant accumulation becomes harder over time. Institutional adoption—like ETFs, which by 2024 already held over 1.1 million BTC—may stabilize the market but also intensifies competition for a scarce resource.

Criticisms and Tensions Within the Community This angle generates friction even among convinced bitcoiners. The responses are often the same: “Bitcoin is inclusive, anyone can enter.”
—True, but not everyone will, nor under equal conditions. “The price doesn’t matter, what matters is saving.”
—Yes, but when 1 satoshi is perceived as “inaccessible,” the cultural barrier will be massive. “The future belongs to those who prepare.”
—Perhaps, but isn’t that just economic Darwinism taken to the extreme? The risk of denying this conversation is getting trapped in a narrative as illusory as fiat: promising universal inclusion without analyzing the real inequalities that may arise.