[dheera]

True, though right now, the markets are set up such that anyone with positive net worth and consistent income can easily do vastly better than anyone with negative net worth. The more positive your net worth, the more leverage and risk you can safely afford, and you get rewarded for that.

The rich can afford the risks associated with leveraged crypto and AI stocks, the poor can only afford VOO or (worse) Treasury bonds because their life would be on the line if they lost money.

If you actually have money to throw away, you'd be an idiot to not have a pile of BTC right now. If you don't have money to throw away, BTC is dangerous as fuck.

The markets are designed to continually widen the gap between rich and poor.

[Terr_]

There are a variety of simple market simulations one can come up with where--despite every participant being equally skilled--the final outcome is always one rich guy and everyone else poor.

When you combine some of these simple models with an adjustable "redistributed back by tax" function, you get results which resemble the various countries of the world.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-inequality-inev...

[throw4321]

> you'd be an idiot to not have a pile of BTC right now

I do agree with your overall take that there is a recent trend towards de-democratization of investment opportunities. The invention of the stock market was a huge deal because it massively moved the needle towards democratization.

BTC ain't it, however. Good luck proving the hypothesis that BTC is not tulips.

Personally, I see two major outcome sets. Either Russia "conquers the planet" or it doesn't. If it does, BTC is no longer any use to Russian-aligned oligarchs to bypass sanctions. If it doesn't, the West will eventually wisen up and hamper BTC transactions to the point that the alternatives win out.

Those are two likely crashpoints. There are 10000 possible others. Musical chairs always ends, it's just a matter of when.