If the banksters and governments held 90% of the Bitcoin supply, what now?

[Legoecia1]

In my honest opinion I do not think this is possible. Because many people are investing in bitcoin so as bitcoin value depends in supply and demand so if the banksters and governments hold 90% of the supply the value will increase making a lot of people very rich.

[Ocaewin03]

It's not possible, a lot of 'whales' are HODLING so many bitcoins that the numbers just won't add up. Besides, 90% share means a huge sum of investment in the market, buying out small stakeholdes which is the equivalence of being rich in fiat.

[Nolimitz84]

Perhaps it will.Not surprised.We have to buy as many bitcoins as possible and get in the same boat with governments and bankers and oligarchs.Kidding)If it's that easy, we won't be allowed to get in that boat.Personally, my opinion is that 90% of elites would hardly spend their money in bitcoins. And for fiat money, you can buy an island and a yacht and live to the fullest.Bitcoin is something unknown and incomprehensible for many businessmen and elites.So to speak about the ownership of 90% of all bitcoins is groundless.

[Wind_FURY]

in my opinion the only way to discuss a "what if" scenario like this is to first talk about the reasons why you think that scenario is going to happen.
for example in this case you should first discuss the reasons why a government or bank would want to control 90% of bitcoin supply? is it to control its price and make profit? or is it to control its future development? or some sort of censoring?

I am a believer of the idea that Bitcoin will become a global reserve currency one days, that governments and corporations would be willing to make the most important of their transactions with because of its security, finality, and immutability.

if we clarify the motivation then we can clarify whether it is even going to happen or not. for instance to control the price there are a lot of easier and much cheaper ways.

The motivation would be the same as what they do to other valuable assets. Try to corner its market.

other motivations may not even work with controlling the supply. for example no matter how much bitcoin you have, you still can't change consensus rules because it is not Proof of Stake coin.

What? Controlling 90% of the supply would make it stop from being a permissionless system.

[sieemma]

It is highly impossible for this to happen even though this is their primary aim before they accept crypto. If this happens, they will continue to manipulate their economies as they are doing with their fiats. They won't have total control over the economy if they accept crypto.

[franky1]

I am a believer of the idea that Bitcoin will become a global reserve currency one days, that governments and corporations would be willing to make the most important of their transactions with because of its security, finality, and immutability.

to be a reserve is to lock it up and not be a common currency  (IMF SDR is not common dollar. much like canadian is not american dollar)
to be a reserve some entity has to secure, hold and control the reserve because left in the hands of common folk makes it unpredictable/volatile

so trying to start the reserve. many are saying bitcoin has failed being a common currency.

i will now leave you to your research on the depths some will go to make bitcoin not useful for common use. and instead a locked up custodial reserve.

i hope you can realise my own "reservations"(excuse the pun) about why i do not like bitcoin to become a reserve. as this topics title and your own inferred idea of the end result in such a situation

[marcbitcoins]

The government is very rich then if they will able to held 90% of the Bitcoin supply but if this will happen then there will be two scenarios like Bitcoin will probably going to be centralized platform as the price will become stabilized or it will be the end of Bitcoin as the government has the full disposal of it anytime but there are lot of Altcoins that are ready to step up therefore if this will become possible then still there is nothing to worry about as we will just shift to other currencies probably the Ethereum.

[ict]

f that happens, then banksters and the government can control all crypto markets and can control the price of crypto currencies. this will damage the market and investors or users of crypto currencies will leave. so the crypto currency will be extinct. however, the government and banksters will need large capital to get the bitcoin that is currently on the crypto market. if they have got all the supply of bitcoin then they can control all the supply and price of bitcoin.

[Wind_FURY]

I am a believer of the idea that Bitcoin will become a global reserve currency one days, that governments and corporations would be willing to make the most important of their transactions with because of its security, finality, and immutability.

to be a reserve is to lock it up and not be a common currency  (IMF SDR is not common dollar. much like canadian is not american dollar)
to be a reserve some entity has to secure, hold and control the reserve because left in the hands of common folk makes it unpredictable/volatile

so trying to start the reserve. many are saying bitcoin has failed being a common currency.

Being a global reserve currency is storing a currency that governments and institutions would want to be a part of their "foreign exchange reserves" like the Dollar or the Euro, not the conspiracy theory that you're thinking.

That's why I started this topic because it is up for debate if Bitcoin failed if governments and institutions are holding most of it.

[onlydumpstersreally]

This sounds a little paranoid and made out of thin air
I mean, a healthy awareness is only good, but what would be the point of holding?
I assume if the flow of coins stops and everybody holds it, then it's busted, right?

[passeroutpass]

I think that most of the bitcoins are in private hands and few of these people will give or sell it to banks or governments. Everyone who believes in the development and growth of the crypto-currency market will keep them on their wallets and carefully protect them. Therefore, it is unlikely that 90% of all cryptocurrencies will be in the hands of public authorities.

[samsul1234]

Would it be fair enough to assume that the project has failed, or failing?

90% of Bitcoin being held by an oligarchy of the elite, a cartel of banks, and by governments working together might turn Bitcoin into their "playground".

we hope that bitcoin will not die here, I see and read a lot of people's comments about bitcoin soon to die, it's just people's speculation, but it's real if they hold 50% BTC don't play BTC or just hold on over time BTC will run out

[Minhxx]

If so they will probably create price instability and we can hardly predict the market trend when the government wants to control us.

[Wind_FURY]

Provability of scarcity, of limited supply, and a monetary system's deflationary properties might have its own downsides too in my opinion.

I believe that this demonstrates that there is no "perfect" system.

[bolbau]

I think it will be very difficult if banksters want to control the majority of bitcoin assets. besides the price which is relatively very high, when they try to buy a lot of bitcoin, at that time the price will also rise. the result is that many people try to keep their assets, and many people are increasingly interested in buying bitcoin. banksters won't make mistakes like that

[Wind_FURY]

I think it will be very difficult if banksters want to control the majority of bitcoin assets. besides the price which is relatively very high, when they try to buy a lot of bitcoin, at that time the price will also rise. the result is that many people try to keep their assets, and many people are increasingly interested in buying bitcoin. banksters won't make mistakes like that

That is side-stepping the question, and avoiding the point of the discussion. But I understand. Some of us cannot accept the possibility that Bitcoin can fail. That is not a healthy attitude to have in my opinion. I believe we should also perceive it as a "software experiment that could fail".

[OddEvenBets.com]

Would it be fair enough to assume that the project has failed, or failing?

90% of Bitcoin being held by an oligarchy of the elite, a cartel of banks, and by governments working together might turn Bitcoin into their "playground".

Where you got info that 90% of being held by an oligarchy of the elite?
It's not true.
Bitcoin is serious coin and serious business + mining.
"playground" can't exist in any case.

[Wind_FURY]

Would it be fair enough to assume that the project has failed, or failing?

90% of Bitcoin being held by an oligarchy of the elite, a cartel of banks, and by governments working together might turn Bitcoin into their "playground".

Where you got info that 90% of being held by an oligarchy of the elite?
It's not true.
Bitcoin is serious coin and serious business + mining.
"playground" can't exist in any case.

It is a hypothetical scenario, and whether Bitcoin has failed if that were to happen, is up for debate. I believe in a sense, it would fail as an open system because Bitcoin would effectively cease to become permissionless.

[GemmaJon]

I don't think so. There are more and more people joining in cryptoworld, I don't think that bankster and governments can held up to 90% of bitcoin supply. It is true that government and bank really hate and want to kill bitcoin so it is impossible that they 90% of bitcoin.

[ShowOffoN]

There will definitely be pros and cons if that happens. The biggest con being is that it will obviously already become regulated which therefore means losing control and democracy over the actions of banks and governments on our bitcoins. On the other hand, if there will that much holdings by the banks and the governments, then there is support for bitcoin being widely accepted.