pull down to refresh

When did the 'bitcoin is not fair' narrative take off?
288 sats \ 5 comments \ @stack_harder 12 Feb bitcoin
I've heard this one popping up more recently, I suppose it has become more popular with more NGU. I don't think I saw this narrative pop up pre-2024.
the logic seems to be when bitcoin price is down people don't care, then when it's back up, it's not fair.
Of all the wrong crap media says and no coiners say, i think find this one of the most retarded because bitcoin is one of the most fair things there is, anyone can get involved, at any price point, in any country, with as little as a dollar. also, there wasn't a pre-mine.
I also have never seen this mentality of 'not fair' applied to stocks or investments. nobody is telling goldbugs it's not fair they bought at a lower price in , say 2018. nobody is saying Meta and Apple stock isn't fair because people got in earlier. etc etc
it's one of the laziest arguments of them all because the people saying it don't apply their own 'fairness standards' to any other class of asset, just to bitcoin. shit, I don't even think I have seen media or 'experts' say eth isn't fair, and this would actually be a valid point for eth because of the pre-mine and the cost to stake.
just hodlers just taking shit and getting abused by all MMS for a decade. no wonder maxis end up toxic, it's infuriating.
when was the first time you guys saw people talking about how it wasn't fair, maybe it was way earlier and I missed it.
I wonder what new BS arguments will pop up as time goes on and BTC continues to grow.
write
preview
related posts
32 sats \ 1 reply \ @chaoticalHeavy 12 Feb
The first I heard of this was a European Central Bank paper in October 2024.
early adopters exactly increase their real wealth and consumption at the expense of the real wealth and consumption of those who do not hold Bitcoin or who invest in it only at a later stage
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @stack_harder OP 12 Feb
i think that was where i heard this one first as well, the 'not fair' line of thinking might have even started there
it wont be dethroning the 'no intrinsic value' argument anytime soon though i don't think
reply
32 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 12 Feb
Hmm, I haven't heard this one much, to be honest. But I'd reply with something like,
"Is the dollar system more fair, where money can be printed out of thin air, and those with the most political connections gets first access to them?"
"Bitcoin is fair because even if the distribution starts uneven, you can't keep accumulating more bitcoin without providing value to someone else first."
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @stack_harder OP 12 Feb
exactly, nothing about the whole fiat system is in any way fair, of course, anti btc people seem incapable to rational logic
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @0393c53fc8 17h
I've always believed that halvings were unfair. And I say this as an OG who reaped significant benefits. I don't deserve massive gains just for being born a bit earlier. I use Bitcoin to opt-out of the system, not to get rich. 50% of total supply mined in the first 4 years doesn't seem fair For Dogecoin and Monero the numbers are even sharper: 80% of total supply mined in the first 4 years 50% of total supply mined in the first year
reply