Ines AissaniWe still have to ask ourselves the question of this extreme cryptomonetization of society. Of course we have our noses in it and of course we have our heads on the handlebars but that should not prevent us from wanting to remain objective about what is happening around us.
Not everything is rosy in decentralized finance. No, clearly, everything is not dark either, in fact. We must ask ourselves the question clearly: Are the bitcoin holders (of today) the millionaires of tomorrow? To the extent that bitcoin is a limited commodity (21 million bitcoins and not a single coin more), this mathematically limits the number of holders, doesn't it?
So, in the world tomorrow, the ultra-rich will be those who own bitcoin and the others will be the poor (even if they own dollars?)
Who are the bitcoin aristocrats?
Are bitcoin hodlers the neo-aristocrats of today as suggested by academic John Danielsson of the London School of Economics who published an article in the excellent Center for Economic Policy and Research, through which he depicts a future where the “Bitcoin aristocrats” would, in spite of themselves, create an extremely unequal world. Basically, his point is to say that if bitcoin becomes the supreme currency (in the sense of bitcoin's monetary supremacy), then bitcoiners would become the aristocrats of an unhealthy economy. A closed and contradictory capitalism where the American dream of being able to get rich from nothing would become pure heresy.
Yes, a plutocracy where Bitcoin was originally intended to democratize finance for all. That would be a shame.
A frightening dystopia as the gap could be too great between those who own a lot of crypto and the others, who do not (yet) know what it is.
You can read the article here or listen to the podcast there. I didn't want to specify it but John Danielsson is also the author of the article in " Cryptocurrencies don't make sense"...I'm just saying this, I'm just saying nothing?
In a simplistic scenario, the latter could become the financially "dominated" of the others. However, the others in question will have nothing more except a fuller wallet. If the latter are stupid, stupid, mean and greedy, what would happen?
They would seek to protect at all costs what has been called the "Bitcoin Citadel", a sort of ultimate castle where the lords of bitcoin would defend their bitcoins body and soul to remain the masters of the world.
He explains that today's Bitcoin owners would become the "richest people in the world," who would "rival the kings and emperors who ruled empires over centuries past. They will literally own all the money. They will be able to buy anything they want. There are not many of them. Compared to the multitudes who own assets today through all the pension funds and mutual funds and the rest, that's a small group of people."
The really interesting point that John Danielsson raises is the fact that this lordship would have no other added value than the simple fact of having been an "early adopter". They would have no other merits and would not seek to contribute to improving the system but simply to enjoy their wealthy situations. The author is not wrong, we must recognize that.
The author adds that they will not make any contribution to society and that the government would be forced to protect itself and attack them as much as it can. He then inevitably concluded that the price of bitcoin would reach zero because governments would ban it…
In fact, as the article concludes Emmanuel Young on Beincrypto, "While Danielsson's words may be seen as critical, in reality he is simply urging the community to focus on 'building', not just winning.
This is exactly the message we need to understand to move the debate forward. We must not forget that behind the lure of profit, there is a real technology in bitcoin and cryptocurrencies that can improve our world.
It's up to us to be the shield against the aristocrats that we are despite ourselves. It’s up to us (who own bitcoin) not to succumb to our primal instincts for domination….
What do we think of this pessimistic scenario and the bitcoin aristocrats?
The article may be gloomy and focus on bitcoin without taking into consideration the enormous advancement of technology as a whole. Use cases and uses have freed themselves from pure finance and NFTs, for example, are just one example.
To focus only on bitcoin and to see only future aristocrats here is to have a very reduced vision of this universe which goes far beyond us. You need to broaden your field of vision before making a judgment.
We can't reduce the Internet to Youtube or Facebook, can we? So why want to reduce blockchain to bitcoin?
There are thousands of cryptocurrencies, with different characteristics and different values (perceived and real) for different uses. Everyone can benefit from it freely, without any problem of geographical border or inherited initial capital. Everyone can contribute to this economy and benefit from it.
We all have the same chances with cryptocurrencies and this is the great advantage that "decentralization" offers us. The maximalists with bitcoin cannot build a citadel even though the world is already building other citadels, all as beautiful, large and welcoming...
