Fiat money's richest vs Bitcoin's richest

[AtomicLemon_]

The 1% richest people in the world control half the worlds wealth (According to this article: https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/nov/14/worlds-richest-wealth-credit-suisse)

"At the other end of the spectrum, the world’s 3.5 billion poorest adults each have assets of less than $10,000 (£7,600). Collectively these people, who account for 70% of the world’s working age population, account for just 2.7% of global wealth."


vs


(After spending 20 minutes doing the math)
The top 1% richest Bitcoin addresses account for 87.92% of all circulating Bitcoins.

Again, on the other end of the spectrum, the poorest 48.06% of addresses hold 0.02% of all circulating Bitcoins.


What do you guys think of this? I'd say that lots of the richest addresses don't count as much because some of them are exchanges cold wallets holding some people's funds.

EDIT: Forgot to add the the source for the information on Bitcoin's addresses came from here: https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html

[Darker45]

I'd say that lots of the richest addresses don't count as much because some of them are exchanges cold wallets holding some people's funds.

In a list of the world's richest persons, the basis is more or less accurate. Basically, these people have declarations and their businesses' value could somehow be appraised. In a list of richest Bitcoin owners, however, the basis is not as accurate. What we only have are addresses. Of course, we cannot tell with certainty whether these addresses are indeed owned by companies or individuals.

The point, however, is that Bitcoin is not as different as fiat insofar as distribution is concerned. Those who have the capacity to accumulate as many Bitcoins as possible are those rich people. And they are absolutely free to do so. Bitcoin does not have a mechanism to limit people's BTC holdings or to evenly divide the entire supply among the world's population.

[AtomicLemon_]

I'd say that lots of the richest addresses don't count as much because some of them are exchanges cold wallets holding some people's funds.

The point, however, is that Bitcoin is not as different as fiat insofar as distribution is concerned. Those who have the capacity to accumulate as many Bitcoins as possible are those rich people. And they are absolutely free to do so. Bitcoin does not have a mechanism to limit people's BTC holdings or to evenly divide the entire supply among the world's population.

You're very right. I just wanted to point out the massive difference (for the better or worse) of numbers

[mk4]

The point, however, is that Bitcoin is not as different as fiat insofar as distribution is concerned. Those who have the capacity to accumulate as many Bitcoins as possible are those rich people. And they are absolutely free to do so. Bitcoin does not have a mechanism to limit people's BTC holdings or to evenly divide the entire supply among the world's population.

Word. Apparently for some reason there are some people who think that Bitcoin is a solution to wealth inequality. While Bitcoin definitely gave the less-wealthy people a huge opportunity to buy an asset that could exponentially increase in price, the rich are always going to have a lot more opportunities simply due to them having a lot more capital.

[avikz]

The 1% richest people in the world control half the worlds wealth (According to this article: https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/nov/14/worlds-richest-wealth-credit-suisse)

"At the other end of the spectrum, the world’s 3.5 billion poorest adults each have assets of less than $10,000 (£7,600). Collectively these people, who account for 70% of the world’s working age population, account for just 2.7% of global wealth."


vs


(After spending 20 minutes doing the math)
The top 1% richest Bitcoin addresses account for 87.92% of all circulating Bitcoins.

Again, on the other end of the spectrum, the poorest 48.06% of addresses hold 0.02% of all circulating Bitcoins.


What do you guys think of this? I'd say that lots of the richest addresses don't count as much because some of them are exchanges cold wallets holding some people's funds.

EDIT: Forgot to add the the source for the information on Bitcoin's addresses came from here: https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html

It shows that the disparity of wealth is even severe in bitcoin market than the real world, which should have been other way around. But I am not surprised because bitcoin has long gone out of the hand of the individuals long time back. I still remember, that bitcoin mining was possible by an individual back in 2010 - 2012. But post that time, we started seeing immense institutional interest on mining and people with deep pocket, started setting up their own mining companies. That eventually lead the small miners out of the business.

The statistics shows that wealth distribution is indifferent - be it in crypto market or be it in real world. Riches will be riches and poor will get poorer. Sad!

[AtomicLemon_]

The 1% richest people in the world control half the worlds wealth (According to this article: https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/nov/14/worlds-richest-wealth-credit-suisse)

"At the other end of the spectrum, the world’s 3.5 billion poorest adults each have assets of less than $10,000 (£7,600). Collectively these people, who account for 70% of the world’s working age population, account for just 2.7% of global wealth."


vs


(After spending 20 minutes doing the math)
The top 1% richest Bitcoin addresses account for 87.92% of all circulating Bitcoins.

Again, on the other end of the spectrum, the poorest 48.06% of addresses hold 0.02% of all circulating Bitcoins.


What do you guys think of this? I'd say that lots of the richest addresses don't count as much because some of them are exchanges cold wallets holding some people's funds.

EDIT: Forgot to add the the source for the information on Bitcoin's addresses came from here: https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html

It shows that the disparity of wealth is even severe in bitcoin market than the real world, which should have been other way around. But I am not surprised because bitcoin has long gone out of the hand of the individuals long time back. I still remember, that bitcoin mining was possible by an individual back in 2010 - 2012. But post that time, we started seeing immense institutional interest on mining and people with deep pocket, started setting up their own mining companies. That eventually lead the small miners out of the business.

The statistics shows that wealth distribution is indifferent - be it in crypto market or be it in real world. Riches will be riches and poor will get poorer. Sad!

I think this is why PoS is a lot better in some ways. PoW is outdated and too centralised. This still only solves the problem of whale miners, though

[johnyj]

The 1% richest people in the world control half the worlds wealth (According to this article: https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/nov/14/worlds-richest-wealth-credit-suisse)

"At the other end of the spectrum, the world’s 3.5 billion poorest adults each have assets of less than $10,000 (£7,600). Collectively these people, who account for 70% of the world’s working age population, account for just 2.7% of global wealth."


vs


(After spending 20 minutes doing the math)
The top 1% richest Bitcoin addresses account for 87.92% of all circulating Bitcoins.

Again, on the other end of the spectrum, the poorest 48.06% of addresses hold 0.02% of all circulating Bitcoins.


What do you guys think of this? I'd say that lots of the richest addresses don't count as much because some of them are exchanges cold wallets holding some people's funds.

EDIT: Forgot to add the the source for the information on Bitcoin's addresses came from here: https://bitinfocharts.com/top-100-richest-bitcoin-addresses.html

This is the nature of human, since very few are good at math and business, especially investment. Let's say you send everyone on earth 20000 dollar check, taking the chance of covid-19 pandemic. In a few months, there will be a few people that gained a lot, and half of the population would still spent those away, some of them even get a debt

[bitbunnny]

I think that exact list of Bitcoin richest people can't be done. Many of them are anonimous or they don't reveal the exact amount of coins they have and many Bitcoin addresses don't belong to individuals. So, there are no.exact and complete data.
With fiat money is much more easier and these people are usualy more exposed in public so information are not so hidden.

[Lucius]

Unfortunately, there is no perfect distribution of wealth in any financial system, and it is more than obvious that BTC is no exception to this rule. In the first few years after BTC was created, there were very few who knew it at all, and even fewer who invested in it either by buying or mining it. There was even a faucet promoting BTC by giving 5 BTC for one claim, which sounds pretty unrealistic from today's perspective.

It was early adapters who recognized the potential of BTC during this period, who can blame them for being in the right place at the right time. There were many more opportunities to buy cheap BTC in the coming years (2015 - BTC at price of $200 or lower) but it is not realistic to expect it to remain like that forever.

It is our reality that 10% of the population controls 90% of the world's wealth, and although it is not realistic for BTC to change that, it does give us some hope of changing that ratio for the benefit of small ordinary people who would otherwise never get the chance to pursue their dreams - unless they don't win the lottery.

[CarnagexD]

I think that exact list of Bitcoin richest people can't be done. Many of them are anonimous or they don't reveal the exact amount of coins they have and many Bitcoin addresses don't belong to individuals. So, there are no.exact and complete data.
With fiat money is much more easier and these people are usualy more exposed in public so information are not so hidden.

Many people today becomes more millionaire by the help of the fiat currency and cryptocurrency but they make their selves as low key or not become popular because it does not need the only thing they want is the income and we have different way of earnings some of the people want to make more earning in the business way of fiat currency and some of them want to make more risk into the market of the bitcoin those people can handle the risk of the designated they want. Still it is better to have a anonymous identity because it is more risk to their lives and accounts if they will show their identities.

[sureshverma]

Most often, there are no separate fiat and bitcoin rich people, they own several currencies at the same time.

[hugeblack]

You cannot get justice a distribution of a currency that is still being tested and heard only about 10% of the world's population at best.
Also, poor people cannot invest because most of them do not have much money that enables them to invest in high-risk assets that requires some technical knowledge when most of them do not have access to the Internet.
Note that there is an estimated number of people who do not have bank accounts and therefore it will be difficult for them to buy BTC.

In short: the comparison is not logical or will give unrealistic results due to the different variables.

[Farma]

in this issue, we don't know who the winner is. because the richest person who holds fiat doesn't necessarily hold bitcoin. they could be one of the biggest holders of bitcoin, making them rich in two places. however, it is very difficult to know this if we do not know who the holder of bitcoin is.

[pooya87]

this is a very wrong comparison to make.
the first group (world's richest) is taking into consideration all the assets of that person and the final result is the total sum of them which could also contain bitcoin and most probably does.
the second group (bitcoin richlist) is not individuals and it is not the total networth (sum of all assets!) so you are basically comparing apples and oranges.
additionally the bitcoin richlist's top ranks is mainly services that are holding other people's bitcoins. so if you wanted to compare the two lists you must include banks in the first list since banks are essentially what the top richlist (like exchanges) are.

[FanatMonet]

Very eloquent information that people who don’t really like about the maximum decentralization of cryptocurrencies do not really like it. But a rather important question arises, and how many of these richest addresses are correct? How many owners have lost them?

[Botnake]

1% is huge enough because the number of people are in billions who are using fiat, while in bitcoin, the adoption is still low.
That's why if you want to belong on the 1% in the future, you should start investing in bitcoin and owning at least 1 btc is huge enough in the future that you can already retire and live a life without financial problem.

[jseverson]

What do you guys think of this? I'd say that lots of the richest addresses don't count as much because some of them are exchanges cold wallets holding some people's funds.

Even then, I wouldn't be surprised if the wealth disparity in Bitcoin is a lot more lopsided than traditional assets. The early adoption advantage is ridiculous, considering how much Bitcoin has grown and that it was only born about a decade ago.

That being said, the comparison is quite moot. Bitcoin is only more lopsided because of the tremendous early adoption advantage and the fact that the rich (regardless of currency) are the same people who have the most capability to create more wealth -- Bitcoin was never really meant to redistribute wealth after all. You can create wealth with it, but if that's your purpose then it's basically just another asset with a few niches.

As for what I think, I think it can be problematic that a couple of whales can exercise a great deal of control over the market, but at the same time, nothing can really be done within the confines of a free market philosophy.

[michellee]

When you compare between the fiat money's richest versus bitcoin's richest, I guess the bitcoin's richest will be the winner because he has 87.92% of all circulating Bitcoins. If he sells all of his bitcoin at a price now, he will be the new richest person in fiat money, and he can beat all of the other richest people. But I never think of that because that is not my business. What I want to have now is to have and make more and more bitcoin while the bitcoin price does not increase so high. We are lucky now because we could still buy bitcoin below $10,000. Imagine if bitcoin is at more than $20,000, and we are too late to make money from now on, we will not have a chance to buy bitcoin at a low price.

[kryptqnick]

I agree with those who question this comparison. Indeed, if we're talking about wealth distribution in the world economy, the data is more or less expected to be accurate. Here I think it's worth noting that while the topic tries to name it 'fiat's money richest', the article on the Guardian seems to mean the dollar evaluation of all assets one has (including accommodation, stock shares and probably BTC in cases when ownership of big sums in BTC is publicly known). At the same time, the data on BitInfoCharts tells us only about addresses. One address can belong to a big company, and one person can have multiple addresses, so the '1 address = 1 person' approach might be very far from reality.

[20kevin20]

When people earn money, they get the feeling of power. Having this feeling of power feels great, so there's always going to be this competition for power ownership and control because it apparently brings joy.

Wealth inequality will never cease to exist. It can only be changed in different ways, but you can't make it disappear unfortunately. Be it crypto, fiat or gold, there is always going to be someone willing to chase power and wealth.