[cam0]

Just because there weren't early VCs into bitcoin doesn't mean that most BTC is distributed fairly amongst a large portion of people. Most BTC seems to be owned and controlled by a fairly small concentration of wealthy people at this point. It will do no good for average people, so it shouldn't be hyped as "a form of "freedom" or "revolution" or anything of that sort - it's just another asset for wealthy people to buy up.

[hndamien]

Isn't this always going to be the case with money, especially hard money. Partially due to the definition of "wealthy"? The money appears to be unfairly distributed amongst the wealthy people. Yes! Thats how money works! If you have a lot of it, guess what, you are now a wealthy person.

[cam0]

Absolutely, but the bitcoin maximalists (including Jack Dorsey) should stop evangelizing it as the solution to so many societal problems when it's indistinguishable from any other asset at this point.

[hndamien]

There is a fundamental. difference to why they evangelise this as correcting a root problem of fiat money. Fiat money causes price distortion and monetisation of non-monetary assets. It also acts as a constant handbrake of people heavily reliant on holding the medium of exchange - most notably poorer people, salary earners. Fixing this removes a very large systemic impediment to more universally fair system (not equal distribution) to achieve prosperity and social mobility. It isn't a panacea, but a significant improvement on the status quo.

[cam0]

I don't disagree with the problem statement. I just disagree with the proposed solution. How is an expensive asset supposed to help poor people?

[hndamien]

Does the term "expensive" really make sense for an infinitely divisible medium of exchange? Can money be more or less "affordable"? The more meaningful metrics are purchasing power and historical and expected purchasing power, and the confidence of that. By this metric, regardless of price, if it can realistically expect to have its purchasing power increase, then it is helpful to poor people for saving.

[hackingforfun]

I agree, and I imagine it's seen as "expensive" due to the psychology of people wanting to own one whole of something, i.e. a whole Bitcoin, in this case.

However, due to the 21 million max supply cap, not even everyone in the world today can own a whole Bitcoin.

Measuring things in satoshis (100 millionth of a bitcoin) will probably become more common, assuming demand continues to increase. I think it will, due to Bitcoin's scarcity, and the ever increasing realization of the need for a hard asset, as inflationary monetary policies continue around the world.

I also think an important distinction is that several of the other popular cryptos do not have a hard supply cap, or it's so high as to not matter.

Ethereum does not have a hard supply cap. With EIP-1559, some ETH is burned, causing some deflationary pressure, but still, there is no max cap in place at this time. The Shiba Inu meme coin has a 1 quadrillion supply cap, which is so high as to not matter at all. People can own a bunch of Shiba Inu, and maybe they like having a high number of something, but IMO, it just doesn't have the long term resilience of Bitcoin.

By the way I'm not hating on Ethereum, I think it has a place too, but Bitcoin is different. I have no idea why people invest in Shiba Inu except just to try to ride momentum, but I don't see how that will work out well long term (or maybe they believe in ShibaSwap, I'm not sure).

Anyway going back to Bitcoin, another benefit is allowing the unbanked to economically participate with others using digital money just by having a smartphone or computer, and an internet connection. Otherwise they have to rely on physical cash.

The hard money aspect of Bitcoin, and the ability to transfer money to anyone across the world over the internet, even the unbanked, are two aspects that I consider a "revolution". I do think Bitcoin needs the Lightning Network to scale, but I don't see any issue with that.