0 sats \ 2 replies \ @elvismercury OP 30 Jul 2023 \ parent \ on: Is btc's distribution a threat to adoption? bitcoin
The number of people who have it is the aspect of distribution I'm referring to. The question of how short the 'short term' effects would be of one person's ability to perturb the value of all the world's goods is the question at hand.
Well, okay let's say I'm Putin and I own 90% of the total bitcoin supply. If I dump the entire supply now, for dollars let's say, then nothing really happens. The price of bitcoin in dollars will crash and reach some new equilibrium until it starts to climb again at whatever rate bitcoiners can orange pill people, but this won't have any systemic effects. If all of the world's goods are denominated in bitcoin then I can dump my supply, but only out of spite. What would I dump it for? Dollars? By this point they're either a token for paying taxes, denominated in bitcoin, or defunct. Buy out all of the consumer goods in the world? At this point, it's in my interest to keep holding since I have a lot of bitcoin in a bitcoin-denominated world.
reply
I think that's basically right, except I think you're emphasizing the wrong point: Putin isn't dumping as an attack, he's spending because he wants stuff, the same as people do who are hugely privileged in the current fiat system, with the same effects: the distribution is such that he spends egregiously and keeps fucking up the prices of goods (Cantillon) and de-valuing the larger currency (bc he's such a whale).
Eventually the system equilibriates. In the meantime, the other users get incessant devaluation and price instability.
reply