IngwiePhoenix on Nostr: I am not deep enough into the bitcoin space, not because I can't, but because I don't ...

I am not deep enough into the bitcoin space, not because I can't, but because I don't want to. Yet, let me attempt to counter this argument - I wanna try, at least.

The way Bitcoin is constructed is that through regular having and thus an indirect "de-value-ing", even big holders will, at least for a moment, lose some of their value, making the aquisition for other people easier once again. The introduction of Layer 2 protocols, such as Lightning, has proven that this theorem isn't entirely working, but not incorrect either. Through the consecutive accumulation of Bitcoin, even by a poor person, through different means - like, Zaps - it is in fact possible for a "poor" person to rack up their own wealth. Definitively slower than a whale, that's for sure.
The other aspect I would be looking at is the overal "spread". They own all of this share now, but considering that Bitcoin's total amount is fixed, this current "split" is bound to change in some form of capacity. It will always and often represent exactly the same that fiat does: Those who can, will have the most and biggest share of the pie. Why wouldn't it be different in Bitcoin? It was never any different- it has been fundamental even when in correlation to land and country ownership hundres of years ago. That said, even back then, there was still a thriving community about what was essentially "left over". And whilst the whales will keep accumulating their wealth and thus thickening their wallet, there is no denying that the remainder will still be used by other people, and new and inventive ways will be found to do so.

To me, the fixed amount and pre-established halving are two of the key aspects why Bitcoin isn't already totally ruined by whales, and will likely never be, for a long time. Once the whole amount is mined, however, we will see how the community and market responds. Because something will have to happen.