Thread by @bauhiniacapital

The idea that bitcoin "ultimately shifts power from banks & corporations back to the people globally" is an idea which could only be held by someone who doesn't understand money.

https://twitter.com/jack/status/1403440797610020873

The reason why bitcoin shifts the power "decentralizing the power" away from banks and corporations and "to the people" is not a quantity problem, which is the usual argument for rising price. It is the database protocol.

And as everyone knows, database protocol for the cash

in your wallet or the gold bars in your vault is key. If you go to the bar to pay for a round of pub-brewed ale, the very act of pulling out your wallet and withdrawing a C-note involves a bank taking a spread on you, and the corporation which forced the branded wallet upon you

has manifested its corporate greed by selling you that wallet. If you had just used bitcoin, neither the c-note across the bar nor the branded wallet would have involved giving up spreads to wicked bankers and corporations.

And if I buy a house with gold bars, it is the banks

and corporations who take a spread there too whereas if I were to pay for it in bitcoin, those filthy banks and corporations wouldn't be able to profit from the transaction.

The fact I need an app on a phone or computer made by a corporation to deal with bitcoin is problematic,

but nothing we can do there.

@jack might be right. As long as I don't use twitter, or square, or buy a Tesla, or fly to Africa on an airline, or do anything else which allows a company to make a profit on my bitcoin transaction/payment, then it's all good.

Certainly, bitcoin miners around the world will shortly be powering their hand-soldered ASIC boards by paying sats to armies of exercise fanatics grinding out the miles on their secondhand exercise bikes.

The one key to everything here is that NOBODY who takes bitcoin can make a

profit in bitcoin. If so, that bitcoin will then belong to "capital" where it will presumably accumulate. BTC owners will either lend their bitcoin, or they will make investments which will earn more bitcoin (i.e. earn a higher return than market bitcoin lending rates).

To do so efficiently, they might set up gigafactories to make cars or batteries, or make fashionable exercise bikes in China. They might even create a payment system which would process bitcoin payments. Investing at scale, as a corporation, would limit liability and lower costs.

But if they earn less in bitcoin terms than the bitcoin market lending rate, then no need to invest. And if it means raising the profitability of investments by increasing prices (in bitcoin) to "the people", or lowering labor costs (in bitcoin) to "the people", then so be it.

Eventually, capital owners will own all the bitcoin and non capital owners (which is most of "the people" globally Jack refers to) will work for food and shelter.

I think most bitcoin evangelists excited about the decentralisation and "finite supply" angles haven't gamed it out.

Or they have and are simply more excited about its dystopian/divisive nature. Its "monetary/asset construct" is designed neither "for the people" nor for democratisation of finance. It is designed to value and promote scarcity and hoarding of non-productive capital-equivalent.