Does Bitcoin increase wealth equality?

[brainactive]

Due to Bitcoin's supply issuance schedule, it's fair to say that those who buy bitcoin early achieve (exponentially) outsized gains.

Based on what we've seen so far, adoption looks something like: cryptographers -> early adopters -> suits/elite -> the masses

Given that the exponential nature of adoption and returns, doesn't Bitcoin further increase wealth equality? So that the elite are even richer than the everyone else?

To be a bit more specific, what I'm envisaging is the new world to include three groups of people, the elite (aka "the 1%" of the old world), the early adopters (aka "the 1%" of the new world) and the masses (the remaining 98% of people).

Before bitcoin maybe top 2% of people owned 80% of the wealth. But after bitcoin, perhaps top 2% would own 95% of the wealth (approx only to illustrate point).    

Thoughts?

[pooya87]

Bitcoin is not even supposed to "increase wealth" for it to be equally or not.

Based on what we've seen so far, adoption looks something like: cryptographers -> early adopters -> suits/elite -> the masses

You are thinking "day one", so it is something like this
first half of 2009 cryptographers
second half of 2009 the masses.
Whether or not the "masses" chose to adopt bitcoin is an entirely different story. For example an average Joe might have amassed thousands of bitcoins during 2009.

Before bitcoin maybe top 2% of people owned 80% of the wealth. But after bitcoin, perhaps top 2% would own 95% of the wealth (approx only to illustrate point).   

Wealth is not defined by bitcoin. Bitcoin is just one currency among hundreds of them. The "wealthy" have already printed and accumulated trillions of dollars and nothing is stopping them from also buying bitcoin. I also believe that so many of them like Buffet have been buying bitcoin for years.

[brainactive]

The "wealthy" have already printed and accumulated trillions of dollars and nothing is stopping them from also buying bitcoin. I also believe that so many of them like Buffet have been buying bitcoin for years.

Yeah that's my point - I believe billionaires have been buying bitcoin for years. A high percentage of the elite already own bitcoin. And a lot of the middle class and accumularing too. When majority of the lower class eventually start to accumulate, the people who bought early such as the elite are going to see outsized returns compared to the lower class. This increases wealth inequality.

Note: I refer to the groups in aggregate ("elite", "middle class", "lower class") to illustrate my point. Obviously someone from lower class can purchase in 2009 and bought before someone from upper class. But my point is when we look at the groups in aggregate, the "elite" already know the current finanncial system well and are more likely to know and understand bitcoin before the lower class (again I'm talking about in aggreagate).

Note2: Title of thread is incorrect. Should read "Does Bitcoin increase wealth inequality"

[defi-Dany]

Who can benefit the most in such a market? The answer is ordinary investors. Because this can only happen in a market where the benefits have not been allocated and the class has not been solidified. Only in this savage arena, an individual can perform miracles, and of course it is also possible to be broken into pieces. But as long as we take protective measures and take out funds that we can withstand failure to fight in this market, overall we can still minimize risks and maximize returns.

It is precisely because Bitcoin can bring us unimaginable benefits in each round of bull market, and repeatedly penetrate our cognitive upper limit, so we can not think about it with a solidified point of view, because it is still growing, and I think it will work miracles. For example, I believe that its market value will definitely exceed that of gold.

[Kong Hey Pakboy]

That's the reality, the rich only get richer and the poor can probably get by when they have bitcoin's. I think  there's no change in wealth disparity, there's just more means to make money those money makers have been more accessible to more people so it somehow evens the playing field for those at a disadvantage.

[NeuroticFish]

Note2: Title of thread is incorrect. Should read "Does Bitcoin increase wealth inequality"

Then why you don't just change it?

And no, bitcoin won't change much imho. It does give the chance to some "newcomers" get rich, it also makes some of the wealthy wealthier.
Since it gives more chances to almost everybody, it's imho less "unequal" than stocks. It may be closer to what gold was in the early years of the gold rush.

[DaveF]

To everyone replying, if you look at the majority of their other posts it is clear that brainactive is anti-bitcoin. Could be they are supporting another coin or just enjoys posting FUD. Not sure why.

But anyway to the point:

No *thing* can really fight wealth inequality inequality. And no *thing* can really cause more wealth inequality. Government and financial policies can do it, a major change in a majority of the financial markets can too. But a thing, be it BTC or gold or whatever can make some changes to it, but to move the scales to a large degree no it's just about impossible without external influence from policy changes.

-Dave

[tranthidung]

Short answer: NO.

There is no fairness or equality on the world, frankly said. Any system can try to do fair, equal wealth distributions but in reality the rich take it all. At least, 20% of the richest people take 80% of all assets on Earth. You can expand it from nationwide to worldwide scale, from financial to many other aspects.

Why I can say this? Because of Pareto principle that is proved as accurate and applicable in history. So, I invite you to check it out

• Pareto Principel (Wikipedia)
• Pareto principle and Bitcoin owners
• Merit earners & the Pareto principle

Additionally, Bitcoin is not created for equally wealth distribution. People are given a chance to have their own banks, with Bitcoin. Take it, skip it, be richer or poorer with Bitcoin, it is their responsibilities.

[rikybrosh]

Bitcoin secure it's holders from inflation. I think it's mean that the holders will not suffer from financial loss because of inflation. The problem is bitcoin is still volatile, and there are so many people who buy and sell bitcoin at wrong time. Many people in America who become poor because they consider bitcoin as gambling. But I agree that bitcoin maybe increase wealth equality, except those whales who become early adopters that become even much more wealthy. So I think is the most important thing is become early adopters now then we will become richer.

[20kevin20]

You can't have fairness in a world where we have so many billionaires owning almost the entire world's wealth. If you wanted to create a fair economical system, first of all we have to redistribute wealth to the poor. Many thought BTC was helping lower the wealth inequality including me, but it's not that way unfortunately..

One big reason is that billionaires todag are still early and can still get very big positions in the crypto world before the masses get in. See MicroStrategy and Tesla, they're two examples of this happening. They can easily afford a significant % of the total supply. Unfrtounately, it might turn out to actually widen the gap between the poor and tbe rich rather than shrink it.

[Poker Player]

I am against wealth equality.

It's a garbage story that has been invented in the post-communist world where they used to talk about poverty. Since thanks to the market economy there has been a drastic reduction of poverty and hunger around the globe, now they come up with wealth equality.

Societies have progressed with unequal wealth accumulation, but where everyone has become richer on average. Think of a rich man and an average poor man in Marx's time, some 200 years ago, and a rich man and an average poor man today. Today's rich and poor enjoy many more goods and services, so they are richer.

As for Bitcoin, those who keep saying it is a ponzi scheme or a scam don't deserve to enjoy its profits. Those who were early adopters, or mine Bitcoin, do deserve to enjoy them. With the story of wealth inequality, the politician of tomorrow will want to come and confiscate the Bitcoin from those who earned it in order to distribute it to those who said it was a scam, etc.

So fuck wealth (in)equality up the ass and I will continue to buy Bitcoin.

[DooMAD]

Did 'Traveller's Cheques' solve wealth inequality before they became obsolete.  Has email solved it?  No.  Because these things weren't designed to do that.  It wasn't their purpose.  Solving wealth inequality isn't in the remit here.  Bitcoin is not some magical cure-all which somehow fixes every problem you care to name.

It gives everyone the same sovereignty and self-determination.  That's the equality you gain.  However much bitcoin you hold, you have the same amounts of control over that wealth as someone else who may hold a larger quantity of bitcoin than you.  Is that not enough for you?

[bittraffic]

We all have chances in become rich when you pursue your dreams.

The gap still exist but there is nothing the in whitepaper that says it solves inequality of wealth. However there are chances for us poor to join by investing to newer projects and still become whales when the price goes high. Eth was once less than $1 I'm sure there are crypto that will also rise the same way as Eth.

[fiulpro]

I do think that this works if done in a right way. There are people who had nothing and they they invested in Bitcoins and at the end of the day they became millionaires. Many of them are earning even right now and have not yet sold off everything.

I do believe that it does give public a chance to earn, trade, invest because most of the things like : stocks, property, gold does need a big initial investment but with Bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies you are good to go with small amounts and you don't have any regulations as well.

You can make your own path and that's what I love about bitcoins. It's never a guarantee but at least you have a chance to do something different.

[BlackHatCoiner]

As for Bitcoin, those who keep saying it is a ponzi scheme or a scam don't deserve to enjoy its profits. Those who were early adopters, or mine Bitcoin, do deserve to enjoy them.

What's the requirement for someone to enjoy the profits of anything? If they agree with the way it works? If they insist on its usage? If they believe on it?

That very quoted sentence defines a Ponzi supporter's perspective, rather than one's who see things objectively. I get that you support Bitcoin, but you should allow valid criticism. There are lots of signs that make Bitcoin look like a pyramid. There also arguments why it isn't a Ponzi. If you ask me, I can't consider it a Ponzi unless we consider other things we've agreed they're not, like old age pension.

In pension, the “new investors” pay the “old investors” so that they can also get paid in the future. Also, if the system stops having “new investors”, it corrupts. Should we also consider that a Ponzi scheme and characterize it illegal?

The Ponzi scheme has a very strict definition that makes you avoid considering everything in an economy a Ponzi. Some of them do, indeed, look like it, though; I can't deny it.


As for this:

I am against wealth equality.

I'm not against wealth equality, because that would mean I'm against equality broadly. Though, I'm against regimes that dictate equality. That's what you probably meant too considering the fact that you mentioned Marx.

[Lucius]

Yeah that's my point - I believe billionaires have been buying bitcoin for years. A high percentage of the elite already own bitcoin.

If that were true, don’t you think the price of BTC today would be much higher than it really is? If elites (billionaires) really bought BTC, then it would be very visible on crypto exchanges that would be far less liquid than it is today - because I have not heard of a case where someone failed to buy BTC because there is a shortage on some exchange.

Regardless of the fact that the BTC supply is limited to 21 million coins, and that it seems very small to some people - there are still large (millions of coins) in the open market, but also in the OTC market.

Being rich and being elite is not always a sign that someone is intelligent, because there are those who have inherited wealth and do nothing with it except spend it. Consequently, I don’t think these elites took BTC seriously until the bull run in 2017 - nor did many ordinary people.

[crwth]

Are you talking about overall equality? Because that's never going to happen because the richer would just get richer and the poor just get crumbs or something. Unless they try to invest in it, they will probably use it for necessities instead of Bitcoin. With the current situation that we are in, it's not going to be distributed to the masses because it's long gone. Early adopters, on the other, have the feeling of the make it or break it type of thing.

[mrongos]

basically we all have the opportunity to get rich, sometimes we throw away every opportunity that exists, we can't take advantage of all the opportunities that have come to us, maybe people who have been playing bitcoin from the start, they are now rich, sometimes there are some of them who fell into poverty again, because they lost in gambling..

[Kittygalore]

basically we all have the opportunity to get rich, sometimes we throw away every opportunity that exists, we can't take advantage of all the opportunities that have come to us, maybe people who have been playing bitcoin from the start, they are now rich, sometimes there are some of them who fell into poverty again, because they lost in gambling..

Not everyone, are you so out of touch and privileged that you didn't think your reply through? If everyone has an opportunity to get rich, then how come there are people dying of hunger in some parts in different continents like Africa, Asia and impoverished parts of Europe and Americas? This world has been unfair from the start, it's not the world though, it's the people that made it feel that the world is unfair. I don't exactly think that bitcoin increased or improve the wealth quality, probably made just another means to make money.

[hatshepsut93]

Before bitcoin maybe top 2% of people owned 80% of the wealth. But after bitcoin, perhaps top 2% would own 95% of the wealth (approx only to illustrate point).    

Bitcoin's marketcap is still only 1 trillion. This is a tiny drop compared to global wealth. So before you can start seriously discussing Bitcoin's effects on inequality, you would need to have it grow hundreds of times, which might not even happen. It's pointless to discuss things that are so distant in the future, because so many things can change and absolutely no one can predict that.