| > A lot of the early adopters have either permanently lost their coins or sold it If the balance of a Bitcoin economy relies on the assumption that certain people have lost their money, something is seriously wrong. Regardless, a hypothetical Bitcoin economy would require much further buy-in from here, making current holders the early adopters. > It's like saying by the time a company IPOs, early VCs have benefited the most, while that is true, you could also argue they deserve it because of the risk they took. The VC analogy isn’t good at all. VCs invest to fund the creation of something. What did early Bitcoin investors fund? More mining and more hype? From another angle: Imagine if PayPal created a new payment system that used shares of PayPal as the currency. Anyone who wants to use the tool must buy some shares of PayPal, because that’s the currency. And oh by the way, most of those shares are owned by PayPal founders and early adopters, who will gladly sell them at a massive gain. Is Bitcoin supposed to be a speculative investment? Or a stable currency for a new economy? We can’t just pick and choose from either definition as convenient for the argument. |
The same is the case with anything valuable that might become money, including the USD, if you consider that it was originally distributed in a manner that was pegged to gold and that gold was monetized in the same way as described above. The idea that you could materialize a money in any other way is unsupported by history.