0:24

Hey everybody, welcome back to TCB for another TCB short. For the short today, we're gonna be tackling the question: what happens if someone tries to buy all the Bitcoin? So what would happen if the richest person, company, or government in the world decided, "I'm gonna buy all the Bitcoin"? And at first, the answer to this seems obvious. If you have enough money, maybe they just keep buying until they own everything, and if they own everything, maybe they control Bitcoin. But that intuition misses two of Bitcoin's most important characteristics, and those are how scarce assets are priced and how Bitcoin separates ownership from control. So the more Bitcoin someone tries to accumulate, the more expensive future accumulation becomes. And even if someone becomes an enormous holder, owning Bitcoin doesn't give them authority over Bitcoin's rules. So the better question isn't really what if someone bought all the Bitcoin, it's what happens when someone tries? And that question reveals something fundamental about Bitcoin. The closer anyone gets to concentrating ownership, the stronger the economic resistance becomes, the stronger Bitcoin pushes back. So the first thing we have to understand is how Bitcoin gets its price. Uh, people will sometimes imagine that the Bitcoin market is the twenty-one million coins sitting on a shelf, each carrying today's price tag. So if Bitcoin were trading at, say, sixty-something thousand, you could just calculate Bitcoin price multiplied by the total Bitcoin supply. Then you might assume that anyone with that much money could theoretically just buy all of it. But markets don't work that way. Bitcoin is priced at the margin. The quoted market price reflects transactions occurring between buyers and sellers who are willing to trade at the margin right now. It does not mean that every Bitcoin owner is willing to sell at that price. So most Bitcoin isn't sitting on an exchange waiting to be purchased. it's held by people, companies, funds, governments, custodians, and others, all with completely different reasons for owning it and completely different prices at which they might consider selling it. So when this large buyer enters the market, they first buy Bitcoin that is available near the current market price, whatever's available at that price. But as they consume that supply, those sellers disappear. And then to keep buying, the buyer must offer a higher price to attract the next group of sellers, and then a higher price again, and again. So the important idea is this: You cannot buy millions of Bitcoin at today's price because the act of trying to buy millions of Bitcoin would change the price. So your own demand moves the market against you. The larger your purchases become, the more severe that effect becomes. So the market capitalization of Bitcoin is not the amount of money required to buy every Bitcoin. It is simply the current marginal price multiplied by the outstanding supply. And those are two very different concepts. So now that we add in Bitcoin's fixed supply, they'll never-- they're only going to be twenty-one million Bitcoin under Bitcoin's current consensus rules. And the amount that is realistically available for purchase is probably much smaller than the total supply. Some Bitcoin have been permanently lost. Some are held by owners with very long time horizons. Some may not be offered for sale at anything remotely close to the foreseeable price. So imagine a buyer accumulating Bitcoin aggressively. Every purchase does two things at once. It's going to increase the buyer's holdings, but it also removes some of the easiest available supply from the market. And the remaining supply is therefore held on the average by owners who require a stronger incentive to sell. So that means continued accumulation becomes progressively harder. The buyer begins bidding against increasingly scarce liquidity pools. And rising prices can introduce kind of a feedback effect. As people watch a buyer aggressively compete for a fixed supply asset, some holders may become less willing to sell because the buying itself demonstrates the scarcity and demonstrates that it's working. So an attempted monopol-monopolization creates the very market conditions that make monopolization harder. And that doesn't mean that Bitcoin has some magical mechanism guaranteeing perfectly equal ownership, because it doesn't. Large holders can exist, and wealth can be highly concentrated. The narrower and kind of more defensible point is this: With a fixed supply and voluntary sellers, the cost of acquiring an ever larger share does not rise linearly. It's doesn't go up at the same rate. So the more of the available supply you consume, the more aggressively you can push the marginal price against yourself, push the price higher. So long before someone reached anything resembling complete ownership of Bitcoin, the financial cost could become absurd, and some holders may simply refuse to sell at any price. Um, so This kind of exposes also a common misunderstanding about wealth. So suppose a billionaire has $100 billion. that doesn't mean they could purchase $100 billion worth of Bitcoin at the current market price without affecting that price. The dollar figure tells you how much purchasing power they have under current conditions. It does not guarantee that an asset can absorb that purchasing power without repricing. So if enough new money suddenly competes for a scarce asset, the asset price moves. So there's a crucial distinction between having enough money based on today's quoted price and having enough money to persuade all future sellers to sell at the price they're willing to sell at. that's not the same problem. So the first can be calculated with multiplication. You can just say current market price, how much money do you got? That's how much you could theoretically buy. But the second depends on human behavior. And because every owner has the right to say no, there may be no finite price at which every owner agrees to sell at all. So that is why just buy all of it kind of breaks down as a practical idea And there's another critical element here. Uh, owning Bitcoin does not mean controlling Bitcoin. So suppose someone doesn't buy everything, but they become a very large Bitcoin holder, maybe the largest Bitcoin holder the world has ever seen. Maybe they own an enormous percentage of the supply. You can think of a company like Strategy who's closing in on roughly eight hundred and fifty thousand Bitcoin, and they kind of rival only Satoshi himself. They own roughly four percent of the total supply. But do they control Bitcoin? No. And this is one of the most important distinctions in the entire Bitcoin system. Bitcoin ownership is not Bitcoin governments or governance. So owning a large number of Bitcoin gives you control over those Bitcoin. It doesn't give you control over the consensus rules that all the other participants choose to enforce. So a wealthy holder can't make changes. A wealthy holder can't simply declare the supply is now gonna be forty-two million Bitcoin. They cannot make independent nodes accept invalid transactions. They can't freeze somebody else's coins just because they don't, don't like them. Uh, they can't reverse a confirmed transaction just by issuing some kind of decree. They can't force thousands of independent users around the world to run different software. So Bitcoin's rules are enforced by participants who independently choose which rules they recognize as Bitcoin. So they often bring up the analogy of chess. Imagine somebody bought every chessboard possible. They could buy all the chess sets, but them ownership of the chess sets, of the chess pieces, but it doesn't give them the authority to announce that bishops are now gonna move like rooks or that they can change the rules. Other chess players would simply continue playing by the rules that they recognize, and Bitcoin is similar to that. Owning the asset is different from controlling the rules of the asset. And this is unusual because we're accustomed to systems where financial ownership often creates institutional control. If you own enough shares in a corporation, you gain voting control of that corporation. But Bitcoin isn't a corporation, and it doesn't assign protocol votes according to coin ownership. Having twice as many Bitcoin does not give you twice as much authority over the consensus rules So it's very different in that regard. And Bitcoin's decentralization is also economic. So often we talk about Bitcoin decentralization as though it was purely technical. We talk about nodes and mining and cryptography and open source software, and all of those things matter, but decentralization also depends on the incentives of the network. So people operate nodes because they want to verify Bitcoin for themselves. Miners devote capital and energy to the network because there's an economic value in earning block rewards and transaction fees. Businesses integrate Bitcoin because users value it. Developers work on Bitcoin because there's an ecosystem that they deem is worth maintaining. So the system therefore depends on having many independent participants with reasons to care about its continued operation. And this is another reason we don't need the impossible thought experiment where one person literally owns every Bitcoin, because at that point we would be imagining away the broad economic network whose incentives help make Bitcoin useful in the first place. The more relevant question is whether any actor can realistically concentrate ownership enough to undermine the distributed nature of the ecosystem. And here again, fixed supply and marginal pricing make that kind of extreme accumulation progressively more difficult and in fact impossible So if you c-compare this kind of to, the compounding dynamic of our fiat system that we live in now, it becomes especially kind of interesting when you pr-compare it to the traditional financial system, 'cause traditional finance contains mechanisms that can reinforce existing concentrations of wealth, and the basic reason is simple: capital can earn more capital. So if someone possesses substantial dollar-denominated wealth, they can deploy that wealth into assets that generate more dollar-denominated wealth. Um, they might own Treasury securities or bonds, money market instruments, interest-bearing deposits, businesses, equities, loans, real estate, or other kind of productive financial assets. So their existing capital can generate income or yield. That income can then be reinvested, and the larger the capital base becomes, the larger the absolute amount of return it can potentially generate. So that is kinda compounding interest. The basic feedback loop looks like this. Capital, there's a return that gives you more capital that goes to more return. So an important qualification, merely holding physical cash maybe doesn't automatically make cash m-more cash appear. But if you invest it in things, and investment returns are never guaranteed. But within the tradit-traditional financial system, where money printing is pushing up all assets, substantial existing wealth provides access to these productive assets, interest income, credit, leverage, and therefore the compounding that interest provides. So ownership of capital makes it easier to accumulate additional capital with no additional effort. So someone with $1,000 and someone with a billion dollars may have access to the same percentage return, but a 5% return produces dramatically different outcomes for those two people. 5% of $1,000 is 50 bucks. 5% of a billion dollars, on the other hand, is $50 million. So if that return is reinvested, the process repeats. So that one mechanism by which the existing financial wealth can perpetuate and expand itself Bitcoin changes one critical part of that equation. Bitcoin ownership does not reproduce Bitcoin. So if you own a hundred Bitcoin, the Bitcoin protocol does not award you your hundred and first Bitcoin simply because you're wealthy. If you own one million Bitcoin, your ownership percentage does not automatically increase. There's no native Bitcoin interest rate paid to holders simply for holding it. So at the protocol level, Bitcoin ownership alone does not cause more Bitcoin to accrue to the owner. So if you want a larger percentage of the supply, you have to obtain it from somewhere. You can earn it by providing goods and services. You can mine it by expending your resources. You can buy it from someone that's willing to sell it. But you cannot simply possess Bitcoin and have the protocol compound your ownership percentage. And if you try to buy more and more of the existing supply, you encounter that marginal pricing problem that we discussed earlier. So the more you accumulate, the more available supply you remove, and the more available supply you remove, the more aggressively you may push the price higher out of your reach. So compare those two feedback loops. In much of traditional finance, capital earns a yield, which accrues more capital, which allows you to earn more yield With Bitcoin accumulation, more accumulation means that there's less available supply, which gives you a higher marginal price, which gives you even a greater cost of further accumulation. So that doesn't mean that Bitcoin mathematically forces wealth to become equally distributed. It doesn't do that. Nor does it mean that wealthy people cannot increase their Bitcoin holdings. They absolutely can. The important distinction is that the Bitcoin protocol does not privilege a holder simply for already holding a large balance, and a billionaire's Bitcoin does not reproduce faster than anyone else's. A bank doesn't receive any kind of special issuance rate. The politically connected institution can't request that the Bitcoin network create new units for it. A large holder can't dilute everybody else by expanding the monetary supply. So everyone faces the same ultimate supply constraint, and that creates a fundamentally different monetary structure. So traditional financial wealth can use yield and compounding to help generate additional fiat-denominated wealth. But with Bitcoin ownership by itself, you cannot generate a larger share of Bitcoin. So to get more, you have to compete for it. And the more aggressively you compete for a fixed supply asset, the more expensive that competition becomes. So if we return to the original question here, what happens if someone tries to buy all the Bitcoin? Uh, first, they begin buying the available supply near the current market price. Then their demand consumes all of that supply. That means the marginal price rises. They have to offer higher prices to attract additional sellers. And as willing sellers disappear, they confront increasingly reluctant ones. So their own accumulation makes further accumulation more expensive And even if they become an extraordinarily large holder, something like Strategy, they still do not gain unilateral authority over Bitcoin's consensus rules. So the attempt doesn't, doesn't demonstrate a weakness in Bitcoin. It reveals several of Bitcoin's defining properties all at once. Bitcoin supply is constrained. The market price is set at the margin. Every holder can independently refuse to sell at any price. Large-scale accumulation creates its own price resistance, becomes more difficult over time, and even if you accumulate a lot, ownership does not equal protocol control. So holding Bitcoin does not automatically produce more Bitcoin or give you any power over the rules, and no participant re- receives special monetary privileges merely because they're already wealthy. So, uh, the traditional monetary and financial system contains pretty powerful forces that can concentrate financial wealth over time. So it makes sense that we would be asking this question because in the traditional system, existing capital can earn returns, those returns can be reinvested, access to capital can create access to additional capital. Bitcoin doesn't abolish wealth inequality, and it doesn't guarantee equal ownership, but it doesn't change... You cannot gain a larger share of Bitcoin simply because you already own a large share of it, and to acquire more, you must compete with everyone else for a permanently limited asset. And as you consume more of that scarce supply, that competition becomes increasingly difficult. So the best answer to the question, what if somebody tried to buy all the Bitcoin, is not that they would eventually control it, because they wouldn't. It is that the attempt itself would demonstrate why concentration is so difficult. The closer anyone gets to owning an extreme share of Bitcoin, the harder the economics of scarcity are going to push back, and even enormous ownership still would not give them the right to change the rules. So that is the central distinction here. In Bitcoin, wealth can buy coins. It cannot buy power over the network. So, don't worry about somebody buying all the Bitcoin. I hope that helps y'all. Take care till next time, and we'll see ya.