Video Description

In this video, I discuss Bitcoin's initial and current distribution, and how it compares to both fiat and other cryptocurrencies.

Most cryptocurrencies were issued by a small group of insiders, who set aside free coins for themselves, allowing them to dump on retail investors without needing to first register for an IPO.

Unlike Ethereum and every other shipcoin, Bitcoin did not even have a price for the first 16 months of its existence. It started off as a novelty and collectible, and its growth was beautifully slow and organic, allowing time for the Bitcoin network to grow under the radar.

Bitcoin's monetization was organic and spontaneous. It wasn't artificially engineered by venture capitalists and marketers and paid influencers as continues to happen in the "crypto industry." Bitcoin's path to monetization was free from unethical premines, pre-sales, and pump and dumps. Most of the early holders of Bitcoin were cypherpunks, math nerds, and people whose primary interest was not financial.

Hodling Bitcoin for the long term requires incredible self-control, a deep understanding of its value, and nerves of steel to handle the volatility. Even if every person on earth were initially air-dropped a "fair portion" of BTC as part of the initial distribution, most people would not have valued it, and would instead have dumped it or lost it, similar to what took place with the Russian voucher program in the 1990s.

Even today, you can get more than 1,500 sats for just $1 and most people still don't care. These are the same people who in 10 years when Bitcoin is at $2 million per coin are going to be telling you that you don't deserve your wealth and that you just got lucky and that it's just not fair and that the government should redistribute some of your wealth to them.

Bitcoin is a voluntary and opt-in system. You are not forced to use it, but rather are free to use scammy crypto or unfair fiat instead. The choice is yours.

Bitcoin has had the most fair distribution of any money in history.

50 sats \ 2 replies \ @grayruby 15 Apr

Maybe issuance shouldn't have been so front loaded but Satoshi did make an effort to allow others to mine early coins instead of him and seems to have set aside the coins he mined as off limits. "seems to" being the operative term. Time will tell.

110 sats \ 0 replies \ @freetx 15 Apr

From what I understand, the first mined block was not done by Satoshi. He waited until someone else had mined it until he then started mining himself. Allowing an outsider mine the first block set the hashing difficulty rate independently.

This, as it turns out, was a key aspect for the Howey test as it clearly demonstrates that there was no specific "insider" allotment

(Note: I haven't watched the video, perhaps it goes thru this....)

50 sats \ 0 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 15 Apr

In these sorts of situations, I really don't think fairness is that relevant. It is something people bring up, though.