No I think you misunderstand. Fixed supply doesn't imbue something with value on its own. If it did, every fixed supply crypto or baseball card would have value. But they don't. Why? Because value is depends on additional properties. This was the purpose of my FP post.
-
-
-
In a vacuum where all else is equal then sure, fixed supply wins. But if a SC protocol is going to secure trillions in value atop it, game theoretically it needs to be worth some large enough proportion of that to secure that value against cryptoeconomic attacks.
-
And if that token also has greater scalability, programability, more utility/network effects, and is essentially fixed supply (https://www.trustnodes.com/2018/03/22/ethereum-slash-inflation-90-just-0-5-year-says-buterin …) or eventually becomes fixed supply, then all of these FPs need to be weighed against FPs of other potential SOVs.
-
Now consider that that token also earns you interest (PoS)? The threat to BTC is very real. I get it, BTC needs to maintain the "neo-gold" narrative. It may stay ahead or it may fail to innovate and lose out in the long run. I have no idea. This market is just getting started.
-
The market just got started to ETH. Bitcoin network has been successful enduring decisive trials for much longer. In my books ETH governance failed on the DAO bailout, decentralization is failing as node count shrinks and Vitalik is by himself a component on the consensus.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.