Acceptable Capitalist alternative for Bitcoin economy

[yhiaali3]

It's a nice idea, but it's theoretical. Where will you get "modest rich people who own many successful companies/businesses, and own large amounts of Bitcoin, yet are considered poor because they do not accumulate wealth for themselves, but live altruistically or for the benefit of others"!! This is just a nice fantasy.

The rich will never stop accumulating wealth, they will never resemble the poor, and they will never care about them because if they cared about the poor, it would mean helping them by being compassionate and helping them financially. So how would they be able to accumulate wealth to become rich?

[Agbe]

Bitcoin has helped people from the grass to grace and the capitalist can't.stop them to acquiring bitcoin therefore bitcoin has made the poor climbing the ladder to the rich and wealth management. But being selfish is an individual action but those who are liaising with the government are selfish and exploitative. Even the small one the poor has they will like to collect it back upon all the plenty money they have. But bitcoin is kind of liberal digital currency that the capital monopoly can't control therefore those who became wealthy have the mindset of liberalism.

[bitgolden]

It's hard to imagine somebody who has businesses or lots of Bitcoin but is living "selflessly or for the good of others". As a general rule, a business can only be successful if revenue is prioritized over and above everything else. Business isn't charity.

Secondly, holding Bitcoin, though it also benefits the collective, also benefits the holder. The benefit for oneself must come before the benefit of the other. I'm sure nobody holds Bitcoin for the sake of the collective, perhaps not even Satoshi.

The name of that thing is a charity. If you run a charity, you run a charity and people can donate to you. But there is no company that doesn't aim at making more profit.

Even those companies that say "10% of the proceedings goes to charities", are saying "give us so much money that we would be able to afford using some of that for donations. The entire idea of a business is to profit, and if you do not aim at that, then we are going to end up seeing those companies end up failing and doing a bad job and then bankrupting.

[Lida93]

Snip

Give me one feature of Bitcoin that isn't the reflaction of capitalism!

Well, mate, I can't really say about your perspective of bitcoin but it's to me what capitalism as a system is not. Bitcoin has no central authority regulation but capitalist system does has centralised authority despite the private ownership of wealth it allows.  It's for the decentralization of bitcoin that's why various people who regardless of their economic system they practice still get to use bitcoin because there's no gatekeeping to how you want to transact and hold it.

[sunsilk]

We become the capitalists in the bitcoin economy, the more the better. And that's the same principle from the capitalism for each country that they have.

The rich gets richer and the in Bitcoin economy, those who holds a few will continue to hold more in the future because they've seen that it works best as an asset.

I think there is no perfect economic system. For as long as there's an equal share that's given by the central authority to its people then that's good. And for us, decentralization of Bitcoin made it perfect for the poor who are able to buy during the early days to have that advantage.

So owning bitcoin is a distribution of its market/global wealth that we can't see in the usual capitalism despite it being a free market.

And for those you described OP as good capitalist alternative, it just differs when who you meet and how they see themselves because IMHO real wealthy ones are truly humble whether they hold bitcoin or not.

[stompix]

but capitalist system does has centralised authority despite the private ownership of wealth it allows.

Capitalism is not a political system it's an economic model!
Capitalism can exist without a central authority; it has existed since prehistoric times: the guy who had a rock could use this rock and trade his rock for a stick, it's socialism that needs a centralized authority to force the guy with a rock to give everyone in the tribe a rock!

It's for the decentralization of bitcoin that's why various people who regardless of their economic system they practice still get to use bitcoin because there's no gatekeeping to how you want to transact and hold it.

Again, centralization and decentralization have nothing to do with capitalism, capitalism works with a free market and Bitcoin can't work without one!

[DrBeer]

I’ll share my opinion. Regardless of the form in which a person’s wealth is held, selfishness and the tendency to enrich oneself at the expense of society are simply human traits-or deliberate actions. We’ll see if the owners of these companies or businesses will use Bitcoin rather than, say, the dollar.
In other words, changing the asset will not lead to a change in a particular person’s behavior.

[M47AK16]

but capitalist system does has centralised authority despite the private ownership of wealth it allows.

Capitalism is not a political system it's an economic model!
Capitalism can exist without a central authority; it has existed since prehistoric times: the guy who had a rock could use this rock and trade his rock for a stick, it's socialism that needs a centralized authority to force the guy with a rock to give everyone in the tribe a rock!

You are right that ideology itself is not, but the people who use the ideology could make it political system. For example, as we are well aware of American political parties, let me give you an example from American parties. Republicans believe in free market, and they are fine with drug companies to charge up to 300 dollars for a simple 3 dollar insulin, whereas democrats think that government should have a chance to intervene and cap that at 30 dollars.

Not a clue on what is the latest situation, it constantly changes, but that is what they believe. In that example, you see that republicans are saying, what democrats are trying to do is socialism, and what republicans aim at is capitalism. Suddenly it becomes a political thing, instead of an economical thing.

[stompix]

~

You are right that ideology itself is not, but the people who use the ideology could make it political system. For example, as we are well aware of American political parties, let me give you an example from American parties. Republicans believe in free market, and they are fine with drug companies to charge up to 300 dollars for a simple 3 dollar insulin, whereas democrats think that government should have a chance to intervene and cap that at 30 dollars.

Not a clue on what is the latest situation, it constantly changes, but that is what they believe. In that example, you see that republicans are saying, what democrats are trying to do is socialism, and what republicans aim at is capitalism. Suddenly it becomes a political thing, instead of an economical thing.

You're just making the same mistake as everyone trying to bring politics into this.
And furthermore, you take exactly the wrong stance in this, if it were for a capitalist-free market, every pharmaceutical company would be able to sell generic insulin, and you would stop having drugs based on your insurance and how much that insurance would cover.

What you're describing is the quagmire of regulations that have butchered everything that was supposed to be free in this!

[DrBeer]

but capitalist system does has centralised authority despite the private ownership of wealth it allows.

Capitalism is not a political system it's an economic model!
Capitalism can exist without a central authority; it has existed since prehistoric times: the guy who had a rock could use this rock and trade his rock for a stick, it's socialism that needs a centralized authority to force the guy with a rock to give everyone in the tribe a rock!

You are right that ideology itself is not, but the people who use the ideology could make it political system. For example, as we are well aware of American political parties, let me give you an example from American parties. Republicans believe in free market, and they are fine with drug companies to charge up to 300 dollars for a simple 3 dollar insulin, whereas democrats think that government should have a chance to intervene and cap that at 30 dollars.

Not a clue on what is the latest situation, it constantly changes, but that is what they believe. In that example, you see that republicans are saying, what democrats are trying to do is socialism, and what republicans aim at is capitalism. Suddenly it becomes a political thing, instead of an economical thing.

Government price regulation is an extremely negative approach. Capitalism is based on the principles of an open, competitive market.
And even if we assume that someone wants to sell you insulin for $300, the capitalist market would react immediately and offer you a lower price, since competition drives this market. Some companies might even build production facilities in your country and produce much cheaper insulin by reducing production costs.
Of course, your country must guarantee the security of private business and provide favorable conditions for its development. But if there isn’t enough insulin for your country’s citizens, and the market price isn’t acceptable to everyone, then building such a factory would be a logical solution. It would solve the insulin problem, create new jobs, and generate tax revenue for the budget...

And no, Democrats aren’t striving for socialism-it’s not the best concept for a free world. They do want to borrow certain models, but not the entire system as a whole. At the same time, Republicans don’t want "unbridled capitalism" or government regulation-that’s a fact.

[d5000]

While the OP is a bit confusing for me and I don't get why you're talking about a "Capitalist alternative", I think there are some interesting ideas here:

holding bitcoins also benefits the collective rather than just the holder

That's a good observation. However there is a catch: the "holding effect" benefits the community only as long as the individual holder doesn't realize his profits. This means: if he sells his coins after a decade or so because he got a good ROI, then he again creates selling pressure. Early adopters selling were one of the main factors of the October 2025 crash, imo.

But that doesn't prevent that hodling should be net positive:

- Hodling through crashes prevents the volatility to be too extreme, even if at the surface it does create a loss, but as long as you don't realize it (selling after the crash) you won't be affected by any damage/harm.
- The most beneficial form of hodling would be to wait until you can spend the BTC instead of selling it. Spending also creates selling pressure as long as the merchant exchanges his BTC income to fiat, but it also creates merchant acceptance and incentives to build a "circular" economy.

decentralization [...] creates an equal level playing field for everyone,

Agree, but others have already commented that point.

money is better channeled into production and consumption of necessary/good things. If  trustless principle of Bitcoin applies coupled with reputation and high standard it becomes hard to cut corners or produce things that are harmful to others.

Here I think you mix two possible effects:

"Production of necessary / good things". This could indeed be the effect if we had a globally dominant Bitcoin currency which would lead to a less inflationary or deflationary economy, because it would limit typical "consumerist fads" based mainly on the pressure created by inflation. This idea was elaborated by Satofan44 in this long thread where I also participated.

In simple words: In a Bitcoin society you would buy only what you really need, not "because you got some money and want to save it from inflation", like people who buy new phones every couple of months, or those investing in real estate because there's no other way to protect the money (and creating housing bubbles). And that would incentive businesses to produce useful things.

The reputation issue however is not really relevant I think. You can achieve a similar reputation system using fiat.

if it were for a capitalist-free market, every pharmaceutical company would be able to sell generic insulin, and you would stop having drugs based on your insurance and how much that insurance would cover.

In my ideal capitalist system this would indeed be the case. But as long as the concept of "intellectual property rights" exists (which are of course an effect of centralized regulation), many "capitalists" will defend them. You would also need to find alternative incentives for innovation, which is a challenge (but not impossible imo).

[slapper]

Bitcoin's core innovation is removing the need for trust. Trust-less transactions, trust-less verification. However, the kind of society you are talking about requires a tremendous amount of trust. You want rich people, but humble, generous and not exploiting. That is a trust-heavy social contract. Humility is not a protocol and cannot be programmed. Satoshi solved the double-spend problem, not the human ego problem.

And decentralization limiting pride? I would spend a minute or so looking at Bitcoin Twitter before saying that. In decentralization, The power concentration may occur but it changes its attire. Concentration of power is a characteristic of every system of unequal information and unequal timing.

The permissionless review system is interesting tho. This idea of a contribution-based reputation without gatekeepers is good to hear. However, any system that has attempted this, eventually stumbles upon the same obstacle: who looks at the reviewers? You push the authority problem back one level. You do not get rid of it. Once reputation points become worth something, they will be gamed. Incentives have a more consistent influence on behaviour than values do.

What you think is needed to reform capitalism, not just morally scolded, is correct. But bolting ethical expectations onto a trustless system is a contradiction that needs resolving, not ignoring.

[MRY]

Bitcoin's core innovation is removing the need for trust. Trust-less transactions, trust-less verification. However, the kind of society you are talking about requires a tremendous amount of trust. You want rich people, but humble, generous and not exploiting. That is a trust-heavy social contract. Humility is not a protocol and cannot be programmed. Satoshi solved the double-spend problem, not the human ego problem.

And decentralization limiting pride? I would spend a minute or so looking at Bitcoin Twitter before saying that. In decentralization, The power concentration may occur but it changes its attire. Concentration of power is a characteristic of every system of unequal information and unequal timing.

The permissionless review system is interesting tho. This idea of a contribution-based reputation without gatekeepers is good to hear. However, any system that has attempted this, eventually stumbles upon the same obstacle: who looks at the reviewers? You push the authority problem back one level. You do not get rid of it. Once reputation points become worth something, they will be gamed. Incentives have a more consistent influence on behaviour than values do.

What you think is needed to reform capitalism, not just morally scolded, is correct. But bolting ethical expectations onto a trustless system is a contradiction that needs resolving, not ignoring.

High tech machines are just machines that operate digitally and but do not extinguish the greed on the heart of the human beings. Emergence of new powers will always occur even when the governing system is created without a central leader. It seems to me that computer regulations are not able to influence human nature that is power seeking and making colossal profits with the help of numerous unscrupulous methods in the free market.