BTC a chance to change the deadlock of 1% rich peple holding FIAT capital

[gregory51gosh]

I think, there is another big thing why BTC is so treated hostile. Banks have their own interest. But many rich people are very addicted to FIAT connotations and the structure of cryptocurrency may change the general structure of possession.
This may build a thesis that:
- crypto currencies are pumped to give a strike in a moment to 'alienate the fashion' to BTC and show how 'BTC and crypto' is bad for the economic system
- or they are locking into positions to make is centralized through smooth control of the course of crypto
- or it is just a sheep run pump, as it goes.

I would like to open a discussion on that. What do you think?

[dinalo]

It might change which people represent the 1% but if you check the top bitcoin addresses you will see all the money is concentrated at the top as well.

I also disagree that bitcoin is treated hostile, I have found rich people overwhelmingly like the idea of bitcoin, even banks do. I think why people mistakenly think the establishment is hostile against bitcoin is due to the lack of regulation on this new type of currency/asset. That is quickly changing though and both countries and banks are lining up to accept it in a more regulated manner.

There are also a lot of people in the 1% already that have big bitcoin holdings and many more that have diversified at least small portions of their portfolio into it. There is a reason why the notion of an ETF would bring so much money into bitcoin, because even pension funds would be able to invest in it.

I am bullish on the prospects for bitcoin but for different reasons than you, I think it has been accepted by the establishment so that's why I think it will continue to grow.

I think the current pump is a natural reaction to what I mentioned above and the real bubble is yet to come.

[gregory51gosh]

I think that it is going to be regulated, but only because of the reason that any regulation brings limitations (licenses). The newest EU resolutions brings cryptocurrencies into the process of KYC/AML verification, as well as trade mechanisms like exchanges are going to be forced to have trade licenses. I'm not saying it is totally bad - contrary - it brings safety. The main thing is that this regulations are often not adapted to the essential idea of BTC and decentralization. It is forced for BTC to be centralized somehow. Any structure bringing the ability to speculate over course (i.e. like banks now do with relation EUR to other currencies being in EWG but not havinh EUR) brings closer to centralization. Why? Because it is speculated. Not by the community, but by singularities.

[azguard]

It is good question but there are several answer for this.

To be honest i dont now how would be effect and how would all be, but if we look on everything we have some people so rich, that the effort involved in making new type of investment in Bitcoin, can in the end vastly outweighs the effect that this investment could possibly have on their lives.

Other are trying to get rich quick with bitcoin (so many of them), will it be just buying and holding or it will be investment in altcoin.

But some bottom line is that bitcoin network is more popular than ever and Bitcoin is higher than ever.

[gregory51gosh]

Old analysis but showing that 1% of population may hold ~50% of all money: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30875633

I wonder what are the statistics of BTC and currencies. If it reaches over 51%, there is real possibility for BTC to be controlled by 1%. This is something like centralization for me.

[Doms]

There will never be total equality in this world. The rich always becomes richer because they end up joining forces with other rich people. Meanwhile, the poor and the common man continue to struggle with his daily life, trying to make ends meet, some living from paycheck to paycheck. That’s the harsh reality of life when it comes to wealth distribution. The gap between the rich and the poor has never been wider, and I don’t think bitcoin or any other currency can really tilt the balance in favor of the less privileged ones.

[stripykitteh]

Old analysis but showing that 1% of population may hold ~50% of all money: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30875633

I wonder what are the statistics of BTC and currencies. If it reaches over 51%, there is real possibility for BTC to be controlled by 1%. This is something like centralization for me.

You might be right though the people that make money through Altcoin trading and became an expert in making money doing it can get really rich since millions of dollars is flowing through it everyday. Just because someone is rich does not mean that they will be able to pump coins and get their money out of it.

[deisik]

I think, there is another big thing why BTC is so treated hostile. Banks have their own interest. But many rich people are very addicted to FIAT connotations and the structure of cryptocurrency may change the general structure of possession.
This may build a thesis that

This is a wrong thesis for pretty obvious reasons

Money is not wealth, and rich people are rich not because they are sitting on piles of cash (as many erroneously think), but because they own huge businesses and corporations which can indeed be priced or valued in fiat terms (e.g. Apple costs 800 billion dollars) but they don't represent fiat or money as such (what you term as "holding fiat capital", which is not fiat). They represent what is called real wealth. So these superrich people like Bill Gates are mostly Bitcoin agnostic, i.e. they don't really care about it as long as it doesn't interfere with their business empires in general and daily operations in particular

[bouren]

No, no and no...
BTC cannot prevent the concentration of income in top bracket or we say top 1% rich club. Generally we consider those to be rich who have large amount of fiat wealth, etc. So now if we consider dominance of BTC over fiat nothing would change as there are enough holders in case of BTC with numerous amount and people who enter market now will hardly able to hold BTC as equal to earlier adopters. This will make the wedge in case of BTC too as similar to fiat.

[pitham1]

No, no and no...
BTC cannot prevent the concentration of income in top bracket or we say top 1% rich club. Generally we consider those to be rich who have large amount of fiat wealth, etc. So now if we consider dominance of BTC over fiat nothing would change as there are enough holders in case of BTC with numerous amount and people who enter market now will hardly able to hold BTC as equal to earlier adopters. This will make the wedge in case of BTC too as similar to fiat.

At least the top 1% holders of fiat and top 1% of holders of bitcoin are different. Bitcoin may redistribute wealth, but it is possible that we would still have a standard 80-20 distribution curve, with a different set of people.
That isn't too bad, in my view.

[btcney]

The problem with crypto is that no matter how you distribute it whether through crowdfunding or in bitcoin as case, just letting it into the wild and wait for early adopters, there will always be a small portion of early adopters or early investors that hold most of the coins.

But yes, I think it really does change the fact that the top 1% of people all holding fiat. I've seen several pretty rich bitcoiners that have most of their capital in bitcoin and alts. But still the price has to increase a lot for anyone to make it into the top say, .0001%. But it will happen.

[Mometaskers]

Nah. Cryptocurrencies would always end up at the hand of a small elite, just like fiat. Mostly early adopters would be those on the top but as in the case of bitcoin, the people rich in the traditional sense (plenty of liquid money) can simply afford to buy in as much as they want after they have weighed in on possible profits.

There will never be total equality in this world. The rich always becomes richer because they end up joining forces with other rich people. Meanwhile, the poor and the common man continue to struggle with his daily life, trying to make ends meet, some living from paycheck to paycheck. That’s the harsh reality of life when it comes to wealth distribution. The gap between the rich and the poor has never been wider, and I don’t think bitcoin or any other currency can really tilt the balance in favor of the less privileged ones.

Only communists ever believed it'll be possible for people to be all the same. Some people would just be gutsier, luckier, smarter or more industrious. Just look at bitcoins. Those who bought $1000 of it on 2010 would already have $46M by now. 

For me the ultimate goal is just to keep the gap as realistically small as possible and to allow enough social mobility so that it's possible for people to go up the ladder in less than 3 generations.

[gregory51gosh]

I think it is also element of being the early adopter - benefits are higher, however risk is higher too.

For example:

BTC - early adopters produced BTC, now professionals do, it is impossible to do single mining

altoins - the same scheme, now anyone can make an altcoin..

tokens - created are tools like waves that enable release of token in couple of seconds.

smart tokens - represented and covered in smart contracts (as basis)

I wonder what is the next derivative.

[cellard]

I think, there is another big thing why BTC is so treated hostile. Banks have their own interest. But many rich people are very addicted to FIAT connotations and the structure of cryptocurrency may change the general structure of possession.
This may build a thesis that:
- crypto currencies are pumped to give a strike in a moment to 'alienate the fashion' to BTC and show how 'BTC and crypto' is bad for the economic system
- or they are locking into positions to make is centralized through smooth control of the course of crypto
- or it is just a sheep run pump, as it goes.

I would like to open a discussion on that. What do you think?

It will be a switch of elites... in money, there are always elites, so if you are hoping for BTC to be some sort of fair thing then you are dreaming.

We will go from fiat elite to BTC elite.

Of course, the good news is that we are ahead of the pack and we can still become elite. "1 million club" thing by holding 21 BTC is a good way to put yourself in a good long term position.

[Lancusters]

Nah. Cryptocurrencies would always end up at the hand of a small elite, just like fiat. Mostly early adopters would be those on the top but as in the case of bitcoin, the people rich in the traditional sense (plenty of liquid money) can simply afford to buy in as much as they want after they have weighed in on possible profits.

There will never be total equality in this world. The rich always becomes richer because they end up joining forces with other rich people. Meanwhile, the poor and the common man continue to struggle with his daily life, trying to make ends meet, some living from paycheck to paycheck. That’s the harsh reality of life when it comes to wealth distribution. The gap between the rich and the poor has never been wider, and I don’t think bitcoin or any other currency can really tilt the balance in favor of the less privileged ones.

Only communists ever believed it'll be possible for people to be all the same. Some people would just be gutsier, luckier, smarter or more industrious. Just look at bitcoins. Those who bought $1000 of it on 2010 would already have $46M by now. 

For me the ultimate goal is just to keep the gap as realistically small as possible and to allow enough social mobility so that it's possible for people to go up the ladder in less than 3 generations.

In 2010, the people's attitude towards bitcoin was much easier. I haven't heard any stories that someone kept their bitcoins and become a millionaire. Spent some of it at the first opportunity. We all remember the example with the pizza. Luck is in your hands and who knows, maybe you become someday a millionaire.

[deisik]

I think, there is another big thing why BTC is so treated hostile. Banks have their own interest. But many rich people are very addicted to FIAT connotations and the structure of cryptocurrency may change the general structure of possession.
This may build a thesis that:
- crypto currencies are pumped to give a strike in a moment to 'alienate the fashion' to BTC and show how 'BTC and crypto' is bad for the economic system
- or they are locking into positions to make is centralized through smooth control of the course of crypto
- or it is just a sheep run pump, as it goes.

I would like to open a discussion on that. What do you think?

It will be a switch of elites... in money, there are always elites, so if you are hoping for BTC to be some sort of fair thing then you are dreaming.

We will go from fiat elite to BTC elite

As to me, that's mostly bullshit

Or just severe misunderstanding what the elites are made of. In short, money cannot buy you a place there. Further, I don't think that having a few million dollar worth in bitcoins (or with just a few million dollars) are going to make you into "the neighborhood". Money is important, but wealth is certainly not about money as such. If you somehow have 100B dollars in cash (aliens print this money for you), you still won't be able to buy real wealth with it, e.g. businesses, power, influence, etc. Most likely, your fiat wealth will be quickly declared null and void as soon as authorities become aware of it

[darthmaul]

Though top level people will hold most of the bitcoin then also it doesn't mean they can control it. They might be able to control the pumps and dumps (which is rare) but they can't really regulate the bitcoin in their way for price speculation. The bitcoin is limited as we all know and only some percent of which is in circulation. The fiat connotation is completely different from the crypto world an decant not be compared with it. So though holding most of the bitcoin won't affect the bitcoin economic structure for sure.

[Hydrogen]

AFAIK large banks typically hold trillions in derivatives exposure. The amount of balance sheet wealth banks have on paper literally rivals the GDP of nations. That's what bitcoin and crypto are up against if they hope to someday capture a significant proportion of the world's wealth--enough to make a difference.

The way things are now the combined market cap of crypto is like a grain of sand in comparison to the wealth of elites which is an entire beach.

That also doesn't take into account whether elites are buying GPU's & ASIC's en masse, otherwise taking steps to take control of crypto infrastructure and politics. Microsoft, JP morgan, banks, VISA are heavily invested in eth. They could create their own crypto and assimilate it.

[deisik]

Though top level people will hold most of the bitcoin then also it doesn't mean they can control it. They might be able to control the pumps and dumps (which is rare) but they can't really regulate the bitcoin in their way for price speculation. The bitcoin is limited as we all know and only some percent of which is in circulation. The fiat connotation is completely different from the crypto world an decant not be compared with it. So though holding most of the bitcoin won't affect the bitcoin economic structure for sure

It depends on what they are up to

They likely don't need to have complete control over Bitcoin just like you don't always need to have a 50% plus 1 share stake to effectively control a company. Sometimes you can do almost anything with a lesser stake in it. With Bitcoin, it is essentially the same. You can just grab enough coins to beat it down to death, i.e. make it totally unusable by constantly crashing the prices and buying more and more cheap coins at lows. This is not always possible but, on the other hand, completely wiping the coin may not be the ultimate goal in the first place at all

[Xavofat]

Old analysis but showing that 1% of population may hold ~50% of all money: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30875633

I wonder what are the statistics of BTC and currencies. If it reaches over 51%, there is real possibility for BTC to be controlled by 1%. This is something like centralization for me.

Cryptocurrencies are extremely centralised in terms of holders.  You have people like Roger Ver who put his money less than ten years ago and is now extremely rich.

When the price goes up too dramatically, it naturally results in centralisation unless all of those early adopters sell along the way.