how important is the asymmetrical distribution on defining btc price?

[nondormomai]

Hi all.

In recent weeks I have been thinking that a good part of the value of btc is given by its asymmetric distribution, and this applies to all reserves of value.

btc (not BTC) has value (=price) because it is distributed with a completely asymmetrical pattern.
This distribution is the "battlefield" between those who want it and those who keep it (aka holders).
This dynamic increases or decreases the price.

Try to think.

Assuming (data close to reality, but approximate) that
- the gold in worldwide circulation in the world is 175,000 tons, or 175,000,000 kilos;
- the world population is equal to 5,000,000,000;
- and, magically, you can give the same amount of gold to everyone, in just few seconds.

It means: each person would have 0.035 kg.

Assuming a value of 75,000 USD for each Kilo, each person would receive a value equal to 2,625 USD.

The fact is that, as you can easily imagine, if there were such a distribution, the value of gold would immediately be reduced to zero.

Why?

That does mean the price increase if the distribution will be more and more asymmetrical, as suggested by the role played by ETFs?

Thank you for your thoughts, and I do apologize for my poor English.

[btc78]

That does mean the price increase if the distribution will be more and more asymmetrical

Yes. Asymmetrical distribution of anything will lead to a perception that an item is something of a scarcity and therefore hard to obtain. This drives up demand which of course hikes up its price or value. As more and more people hold bitcoin when the supply is limited and more and more people want to obtain bitcoin, its price will continue to increase.

If everyone had the same thing then there’s really no need for anyone to try and buy from someone else thus making the item’s value close to none.

Thank you for your thoughts, and I do apologize for my poor English.

Your english is fine, don’t be sorry!

[avikz]

Asymmetric distribution is a key factor in determining the value of assets like Bitcoin and Gold. While equal distribution may decrease their value, scarcity and demand dynamics play a crucial role in determining the value, with its asymmetric distribution contributing to its price dynamics.

In your hypothetical scenario with gold, if everyone suddenly received an equal amount of Gold, the supply would vastly exceed the demand, leading to a decrease in value. This is essentially an illustration of the law of supply and demand: when supply overtakes demand, prices fall. The same theory works for any other assets with limited supply. Bitcoin is not an exception!

[Husires]

This is not considered an asymmetric distribution, as it would be asymmetrical. This means that a small group with little effort generates millions of dollars, and another group with great effort generates little return, which is not true in Bitcoin. If you invest $300,000 in Bitcoin mining, its impact will certainly be greater than those who invested $300,000 in Bitcoin mining. With an investment of $30,000, someone who bought for $90,000 is not the same as someone who bought for $900. Bitcoin's value comes from the fact that it is a unique, limited and there is increasing demand for it.

[Jawhead999]

- the gold in worldwide circulation in the world is 175,000 tons, or 175,000,000 kilos;

There are no exact maximum supply in gold, it's just an estimation and it can change anytime when someone discover a new place that contains gold. Unlike Bitcoin where the protocol can't be changed, when someone change the protocol, it turns to Bitcoin fork.

The fact is that, as you can easily imagine, if there were such a distribution, the value of gold would immediately be reduced to zero.

No, when everyone own gold, it doesn't mean the price went to zero.

The easiest example is fiat, everyone have fiat, but everyone know that paper has a power to pay or purchase something.

[davis196]

Assuming a value of 75,000 USD for each Kilo, each person would receive a value equal to 2,625 USD.

The fact is that, as you can easily imagine, if there were such a distribution, the value of gold would immediately be reduced to zero.

Why would equal distribution reduce the value of gold to zero? This doesn't make any sense to me.
Gold has utility(some industries use it as a raw material) and gold has been used as a medium of exchange and a store of value for centuries.
The process gold mining comes with mining costs, which also play a role in determining the value of this precious metal.
The global market isn't static. Just because some asset or resource is equally redistributed among all the people, that doesn't mean that it will stay that way forever. Some people will simply sell their gold, while others will do the best they can to buy more of it.

[kryptqnick]

I found an interesting article talking about asymmetries of Bitcoin, but it doesn't seem to mention asymmetric distribution.
If we look at the price, the chart is clearly asymmetric, so, in that sense, there is an asymmetric distribution. The op seems to be referring to something else, though: people have unequal amounts of Bitcoin, so it's de facto distributed unequally. But aren't all things like that? And yet some are worthless, while others are priceless. So I'm not sure what sort of impact it has, to be honest.

[pooya87]

if there were such a distribution, the value of gold would immediately be reduced to zero.

I don't understand your logic here. At the end of the day even if gold was distributed equally among people, it still has a utility and that utility gives it value so it's price can never drop down to zero.

You see price of everything is partly determined by what happens in the market (holders, day traders, hypes, crashes, panic sells, FOMOs,...) but also the other part is the underlying value that is never zero as long as there is a utility.

Like gold, bitcoin also has utility. Regardless of its distribution people can continue using it as a medium of exchange and as a store of value. So its price will never drop down to zero.

There are other issues in this statement as well:

btc (not BTC) has value (=price) because it is distributed with a completely asymmetrical pattern.

Value is not the same as price. Price is the number we associate to bitcoin on the market, it  doesn't necessarily reflect its (intrinsic) value. Price could be higher than the value which we would call bitcoin overpriced and we should expect a drop at that point or it could be lower which would make it underpriced and we should expect a rise.