6
u/outoftownMD 1d ago
Yes, supply matters to the scarcity narrative of true value, but so does consensus . IF consensus is lost on it, value will subside. Value is an agreement among cohorts. Your literal shit is more scarce than bitcoin, but consensus doesn't value it as such. Marilyn Monroe's shit is AS scarce as your shit, but consensus would value it more, so it has a value. Consensus is what dictates value. Lose it, lose the value.
-2
u/suuperfli 1d ago
supply and demand in the market is what determines price
regadring scarcity, bitcoin has about 19.9m coins against issuance that halves every four years, so the ratio only climbs toward the 21m cap. poop is the reverse: humans alone produce roughly 400 million tons a year, livestock far more, and it rots within weeks. huge flow, decaying stock, no cap, anyone can make more on demand. that is the worst possible monetary property, which is why nobody has ever tried to monetize it.
the reason the market values bitcoin as over a trillion trash fiat dollars is because it is superior money, hopee this helps. https://imgur.com/a/HwHByX2
5
u/froz3nt 1d ago
You opened by saying supply and demand determines price, then spent the rest of the comment talking only about supply. That's the whole problem with the argument. Scarcity is not sufficient for value. It never has been. Astatine is the rarest element on Earth, about 25 grams in the entire crust, and it's worth nothing. My fingerprints are unique in the history of the universe and nobody will pay for them. Scarcity only matters conditional on demand existing. So "21 million cap" tells you nothing about price on its own, and the guy asking why the cap doesn't push price higher is asking a sharp question, not a dumb one. The poop comparison actually undercuts you. You picked something abundant to make scarcity look decisive, but the reason poop isn't money is demand, not supply. Manure has been traded, priced, and fought over for centuries, and Peruvian guano was so valuable the US passed an entire law in 1856 to claim islands covered in it. When demand appeared, the price appeared, abundance notwithstanding. Supply properties alone never determined the answer. Then "nobody has ever tried to monetize it, therefore it's bad money" is backwards reasoning. Nobody has monetised granite either. Non-adoption is evidence about demand, which is exactly the variable you skipped. And "the market values it at over a trillion, therefore it's superior money" is circular. Price is what you're trying to explain. You can't use it as the explanation. That's the same move a tulip trader could have made in January 1637, and dismissing the tulip comment with "tulips aren't superior money, therefore irrelevant" assumes the conclusion again. The point of the comparison isn't that tulips are money. It's that market price at a moment in time doesn't prove anything about the durability of the demand behind it. The honest case for Bitcoin doesn't need any of this. It goes: the fixed supply schedule is credible and verifiable, which is unusual, and if demand for a bearer asset outside state control persists, that inelastic supply means demand shows up entirely in price rather than in new issuance. That's a real argument. It's conditional on the demand holding, which is the part that's actually uncertain and actually interesting. Stack-of-supply-facts arguments skip straight past it and end up proving nothing.
0
u/suuperfli 1d ago edited 1d ago
i was just responding to ur comment. my first portion was replying to your comment about what determines value. the next part was replying to your comparison to poop
i never claimed that scarcity on its own determines value.
the market values btc as over a trillion trash fiat dollars due to its many properties (not just scarcity) that is exhibits making it superior money (see infographic in my last comment)
here are some of the properties. a good starting point for some education:
- Scarcity — 21M cap, enforced by consensus rules rather than by a producer's discretion. Gold's supply grows ~1.5%/yr and can respond to price; fiat has no cap at all.
- Durability — it's information, not matter. No decay, no corrosion. Persists as long as the network does.
- Portability — final settlement of any amount, anywhere, in minutes. Moving $10M of gold takes armored transport and days; moving $10M of BTC costs the same fee as moving $10.
- Divisibility — 100M sats per coin, natively. Gold requires assay and minting to subdivide.
- Fungibility — units are interchangeable at the protocol level
- Verifiability — anyone can validate supply and authenticity with a full node on cheap hardware. Verifying gold requires trust or specialized equipment; verifying fiat's supply requires trusting the issuer.
- Censorship resistance / self-custody — the property fiat and bank deposits lack entirely. Keys held means no counterparty can freeze or seize without physical access to you.
3
u/modefi__ 1d ago
Buddy, no one saying "ur" should be trying to educate anyone about anything.
1
u/suuperfli 15h ago edited 10h ago
how does abbreviating words have anything to do with ability to educate?
u r merely avoiding the topic with an ad hominem, lmk if u have any rebuttal of substance
-2
u/eiretaco 1d ago
Consensus is that BTC is very very valuable. Just a tiny fraction of those 21 million coins and my life would be sorted.
18
u/HorrorsPersistSoDoI 1d ago
This post will convince exactly zero people of nothing
3
u/Ok-Basil4240 1d ago
Lol … I think you mean it won’t convince anyone of anything
5
u/HorrorsPersistSoDoI 1d ago
English is complicated man... negatives/positives, anything/everything/nothing, who knows
-4
u/suuperfli 1d ago
yea unfortunately most people have to be personally hurt/devastated from fiat before they come to understand why sound money is important
2
u/2xfun 1d ago
I don’t think hurt/devastated will do it… the only way is via critical thinking and education but the way society is going I don’t see that happening
-1
u/suuperfli 1d ago
well bitcoin is being adopted moreso in areas where people have suffered through hyperinflation (ie nigeria, venezuela, etc). So yes people do tend to wake up when they are personally devastated
1
u/2xfun 1d ago
Look at the amount of people being eaten alive by inflation in North America… where’s the adoption there?
0
u/suuperfli 1d ago
the rate of theft in US is a consistent 5-8% per year. hopefully they will wake up, but the real devastation of hyperinflation is what tends to wake more up
2
1
-1
u/BedBubbly317 1d ago
Or these sort of bot like comments are just insane nonsense and don’t actually say or mean a damn thing
0
2
u/DepthHorror9528 1d ago
Yes, but to br fair there are many limited things.
The graphic doesn't explain why it would pour to Bitcoin instead of... Gold and equities.
1
u/suuperfli 12h ago
because bitcoin is superior money to gold and equities
gold failed as money because custody must be centralized and notes issued in order to transact globally. also, its supply is not capped or auditable, costly to transport, not easily divisible, verifiable, etc.
2
2
u/Scary_Caterpillar226 1d ago
BTC is capped at 21M and I understand the concept of scarcity. Over 20M of the 21M are in circulation with the remaining to be mined by year 2140. With 20M in circulation and none of us being alive in 2140, shouldn’t the current price reflect the “scarcity” and BTC’s value be much higher? We keep talking about the fact there is only 21M but we are close to that number now and it doesn’t seem to be a factor. Maybe I’m not understanding something?
1
u/suuperfli 1d ago
market price is determined by supply and demand, and can fluctuate based off many factors like human emotion and leverage from fiat. early on in its monetization phase, short term market price volatility is to be expected.
2
u/Scary_Caterpillar226 1d ago
It seems that we as Hodl’ers are hoping the “low supply” creates enough “demand” to increase value and raise the price. It’s my opinion that BTC needs more channels to increase demand, other than capped supply, to really to see BTC grow. Just my .02
1
u/suuperfli 1d ago
more channels than exhibiting the characteristics of superior money? can you elaborate
scarcity, durability, portability , divisibility, fungibility, verifiability, censorship resistance
2
u/cloudedApron 1d ago
directionally i agree with the thesis, but this is the kind of thing that gets posted right before a 40 percent drawdown and then nobody mentions the triangle for a year
2
1
u/Muted-Cherry-1643 1d ago
I'm a bitcoin holder, but couldn't you apply this logic to any other investment assest and make a strong case for stock, real estate and gold?
1
u/Droo99 1d ago
So what's the bottom triangle look like when you include all crypto
2
u/suuperfli 16h ago
btc dominance is ~60%, so would be approx 1.4x bigger. other cryptos aren't fulfilling same use case though, so not relevant to the graph
1
u/foxxxer22 23h ago
unlimited crypto currencies =)
2
u/suuperfli 15h ago
only one is fulfilling use case of base layer money with sufficient decentralization & security :)
1
u/foxxxer22 15h ago
have fun when saylor liquidates 600000 bitcoin at once
2
u/suuperfli 14h ago
how would that happen?
1
u/foxxxer22 14h ago
At least you can say he holds 3% of all known bitcoin.
It could happen when strategy goes bancrupt. The bitcoin were bought with credits. #margincall
It is just a leveraged trade.
2
u/suuperfli 14h ago
how would mstr go bankrupt? here are the numbers currently:
845,050 BTC (~$66.6B) vs $6.75B debt and ~$14.9B preferred stock.
-Debt only: ~10% of BTC value
-Debt + preferred: ~33%
-Net debt after $6.71B in cash/reserves: ~zero
1
1
u/foxxxer22 1h ago
easy... when BTC value drops =) And there is no money left to pay the debt.
The debt has to be paid in ... USD. And for having them, he has to sell BTC.
Some guys need to be willing to pay $66.6B for the 845,050 BTC
1
1
u/showercream1 1d ago
Fiat is tied to assets in economy therefore not unlimited, otherwise infinite money print wouldn't cause inflation
1
u/Awkward_Potential_ 1d ago
"Fiat is tied to assets in economy"
1) What
1
u/froz3nt 1d ago
If you look at fiat as a measure of assets/products you can buy with it it makes more sense. As the amount of assets/products in the world increases so should amount of fiat.
Fiat is nothing more but a lubricant for easier trade of assets.
Majority of people dont understand that, as well as this sub.
1
u/JLC587 1d ago
No infinite money print causes inflation because they’re infinitely printing it. Thus making it worth less and not able to buy as much assets. Eventually we will be at the state of Weimar Germany pre WWII, where simple grocery necessities for the week of each item cost millions of dollars.
1
u/Unlucky-Chicken2515 16h ago
That’s why governments can print more without any asset as collateral right? If that was the case inflation wouldn’t exist.
1
u/showercream1 14h ago edited 14h ago
They can't, they bloat the capitalization of companies (think nvidia) and print money for the newly made assets.
There's the thing that's been going on for a while where you can increase the capitalization of your company by counting the future growth as such that's already happened. Like you can start a research that claims to double the efficiency or yield 10 years from now and the capitalization of ur company grows today cuz you got that revolutionising research going on
And that's what's been counted as asset equal to the rest of assets for the last decades and that's what enables the endless money print, only that inevitably in the future some of these researches will fall short of the promises and the economy is gonna be fucked cuz many assets will turn out to be fake
0
u/na3than 1d ago
"tied" is a stretch. There's no fixed - or even predictable - ratio of fiat money to the assets in the economy. In fact, much (most?) of the money in circulation doesn't exist in conjunction with assets but with services.
1
u/showercream1 1d ago
I actually agree with you in a sense that a lot of fake assets have been created in a financial sector to justify money print, it's just that this will have consequences further down the line therefore my point stands and fiat money is tied to assets. Okay, fiat money *of an economy that wants to live long-term"
0
u/suuperfli 1d ago
it is not "tied" to anything. there is not limit on the amount fiat can be printed by a centralized entity. it will cause hyperinflation as it dies
3
u/showercream1 1d ago
Same as saying a human isn't tied to water - ye you can break that rule technically, won't last for long though
1
u/suuperfli 1d ago
you're saying if we destroyed all assets than fiat couldn't exist? assets can vary depending on what humans value at the time. your comment doesn't make sense
1
u/showercream1 1d ago
Indeed if you have zilch to buy and to sell money losses it's purpose
Also, if humans lose their physical form tomorrow and won't need homes to live in then the array of valued assets will shrink and prices for what's still valued will skyrocket, proving the point that fiat is tied to assets. Sorry it doesn't make sense to you
1
0
u/Awkward_Potential_ 1d ago
This has to be a bot. This shit makes no sense. Lmao
2
u/showercream1 1d ago
Fuckiddy fuck no I'm not a bot
0
1
u/chamillion03 1d ago
Only 100,000 tulips.
0
u/suuperfli 1d ago
tulips aren't superior money, therefore are irrelevant https://imgur.com/a/HwHByX2
1
u/QuarterlyProfit 1d ago
Bitcoin is pretty bad at being money.
0
u/suuperfli 1d ago
it is adhering to the supply cap while remaining decentralized and secure just fine
if you mean the short-term volatility of the market price, this is to be expected in an emerging money early on in its monetization phase
2
u/QuarterlyProfit 1d ago
Yeah but why would I buy anything with an Emerging speculative asset? Why would I accept payment in that?
I'm not even arguing larger metrics and issues..just that at the moment its a speculative asset that is too volatile to be usef as money.
Also, a strange amount of it's use case and utility as a currency comes from centralizing and refulating it. Which also kind of invalidates its initial thesis.
0
u/suuperfli 1d ago
during its monetization phase, fiat will still exist and be moreso used as MoW
its utility does not come from centralizing. what do u mean?
2
u/QuarterlyProfit 1d ago
Value has increased as institutions have adopted it. The recent bump came, largely, from the administration announcing support for a crypto bill.
1
u/suuperfli 1d ago
bitcoin is for anyone, all are free to buy in, including institutions. and yes legislation can affect short term market price. but this all has nothing to do with bitcoin's utility as superior money. https://imgur.com/a/HwHByX2
0
u/chamillion03 1d ago
Is it safe from quantum?
1
u/suuperfli 1d ago
nothing can be safe from something that is theoretical and hasn't happened yet. it would threaten literally every bank, government, business, etc. But yes bitcoin has the ability to upgrade to be quantum resistant before then.
0
u/chamillion03 1d ago
No it can’t upgrade…
1
u/suuperfli 1d ago
yes it can, and has many times in the past. they are called BIPs
-1
u/chamillion03 1d ago
Why still slow transfer?
1
u/suuperfli 1d ago
the base layer is for high final settlement assurances (akin to wire transfer). for smaller transactions, additional layers are being used with instant settlement
or are u talking about slow to upgrade?
-1
u/chamillion03 1d ago
Slow transfer ya dingus… layers, not updates exactly. There is not going to be an update to fix its quantum problem.
1
u/suuperfli 1d ago
ok, i explained why base layer is intentionally slow due to its high final settlement assurances and keeping block size small to ensure high decentralization and security
how can you say there won't be an update in the future? you don't control bitcoin on your own, the network does
0
u/a10ondr 1d ago
The biggest risk for widespread btc use is the ability of any government to simply outlaw it once it becomes inconvenient
2
u/suuperfli 1d ago
many governments have already outlawed it, but it has proven to be ineffective as p2p usage just goes up. it's like trying to ban torrenting, good luck with that
1
u/a10ondr 1d ago
Widespeard is the key word here. Torrent isn't widespread, more people are paying netflix. Btc can be used by undeground individuals (especially convenient for illegal activities). But common folk will never adopt it if outlawed. Even now when mostly legal, only like 3% of people hold it.
1
u/suuperfli 1d ago
yea, it has a long ways to go in the monetization phase. we still very early. they can try to stifle adoption speed with legislation but can't stop it outright
1
u/Romanizer 1d ago
There is no government with that ability. It's too late.
1
u/a10ondr 1d ago
Make all entry and exit points illegal. Unless people are prepared to exchange goods for btc directly, it absolutely can be outlawed. Yes, you can bypass it, but the overwhelming majority won't.
1
u/Romanizer 1d ago
Then you would also need to make stablecoins illegal and international bank transfers. The first is not possible anymore in the US, the latter only if your country is not in SWIFT. No country benefits from trying to ban Bitcoin, they only benefit from using it to their gains.
1
u/a10ondr 1d ago
Yeah, the more likely scenario and the one that is already underway - to promote usd backed stablecoins globally and increase the demand for treasuries to relieve the debt interest pain a little.
1
u/Romanizer 1d ago
Exactly, that's the plan and then inflate the debt away with infinite money against a scarce asset they are holding in a strategic reserve. Anyone not holding Bitcoin will have a very bad time.
1
u/a10ondr 1d ago
You can't really inflate the debt away with this. Even the optimistic scenarios only project like 100B or so annualy in interest savings (which is about 10% of the interest only).
1
u/Romanizer 1d ago
Interest would be lower and a with 1 million BTC in the reserve, they could already match the debt at $50 million / BTC. After the 20 years they are able to sell 10%, which would be repayment of $500 billion per year.
44
u/DrManolx 1d ago
Scarcity alone does not create value. There are millions of extremely scarce things that are worth little because hardly anyone wants them. Scarcity simply means that, given a certain level of demand, an increase in that demand has a stronger effect on the price.