You make a valid point and yes Demand is needed to complete the equation.
But scarcity isn't Bitcoin only advantage and edge.
Bitcoin still enjoys first mover advantage and has the largest and most established network
Which gives it edge in security, liquidity not to mention it's decentralization.
These has made it an attractive asset in the eyes of institutional investors as a store of value
And hedge over inflation.

Despite its simplicity and inability to perform complex utility
It has already built a form of Goodwill in the minds of investors that can be overlooked.
Though they have utility, what comes first is security, Consistency and ability to resist inflation.

I agree with some of this:

1. Yes, Bitcoin came first, as I illustrated in the OP
2. Yes, Bitcoin is "more decentralized" than any other competitor
3. Yes, Bitcoin's platform stability (security) is higher than that of other coins

But my counterpoints are:

1. Being the first in the market only lasts so long. Most of the products people use on a daily basis are not the first company on the market. Why? Because markets quickly evolve and competitors come in.

2. More and more, consumers demonstrate that they don't care about "decentralization" and they don't even know what that means. Most altcoins (starting with ETH) are defacto centralized, and yet millions still invest in them. And most people use an app or a broker that's centralized anyhow. And then there's the ETFs. "Decentralized" is simply not a value that drives the market anymore.

3. Bitcoin is theoretically safer than many other platforms like ETH and Solana, etc. but... how safe do you need? Are people really concerned that their ETH is going to go disappear because the network gets compromised? I don't think so. The top-100 major digital currencies out there would appear to most people as... perfectly safe.

As for inflation, that's circular reasoning: any investment that performs better than the USD will "resist inflation". There are billions of acres of land in the USA you could buy in order to resist inflation. APPL resists inflation, as does NVDA, and so on. Of course these things can go down in price, but so could Bitcoin. Saying this is like saying, "Bitcoin is going to go up in price because Bitcoin is going to go up in price".


Are high school economics wrong? There's always more to add in top of basic principles, but that doesn't mean the basic principles themselves are wrong.



Yes, "desire" is just a synonym for "demand" in this context. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make (?).


Because there are millions more consumer investors wanting to buy digital currency now. Hence much greater demand. You are making my point for me here: the supply of Bitcoin doesn't really matter as compared to the demand.

And my thesis is that much of the new entries into the market are not yet aware of competitors--but the entire industry is very busy trying to teach them (and they have $billions in rewards by teaching them).

firstly basing a thesis (university level) on highschool level means you miss many points

secondly.. no desire is not the same as demand
demand is the actual people willing to hand over money for an item on the market.. desire is just the fanclub, emotional sentiment of people who know and like what they see in medialife and wish they could have it

my point was more of the supply side.. because although the total supply went from 10.5m to 19.8m between 2012-now.. the exchanges never actually had 10.5m-19.8m... the exchanges(market that set price) only had ~ 5m->2m on the market supply

other factors in play of market setting prices is that people dont trade whole btc..
did you know that a market price can change wildly without the need of large/small supply..
a market can change by simply the price differences between each order

EG even with just 0.01btc supply and 5 people wanting 0.002btc each, the price can be different in 2 scenarios
where by the sell orders are

0.002 $97800.01       vs     0.002 $97800
0.002 $97800.02       vs     0.002 $97801
0.002 $97800.03       vs     0.002 $97802
0.002 $97800.04       vs     0.002 $97803
0.002 $97800.05       vs     0.002 $97804

same supply same demand, yet one version the price only changes by 4cent the other changes by $4
..

but with all that said, bitcoin is not reaching ~$98k purely because "first crypto' or "21m".. its up at this level compared to other crypto, because bitcoins cost of mining is ~$50k at the most efficient method on planet. meaning no one wants to nor willing to sell below $50k, and if the market ever did test the new bottom everyone would want to buy it at new bottom because there is no way to obtain it any cheaper by any other method(like mining) so it sets the bottom value support currently to be at $50k as something to start the speculation above that amount.

where as other cryptos underlying value is far lower

did you know that ethereums minting cost is only $50.. meaning that the speculation premium of eths todays price is 68x
where as bitcoins base mining cost is at about $50,000.. meaning that the speculation premium of btcs todays price is 1.98x

also the reason why eth is speculating at such a premium(way above base cost) is not because everyone loves and wants eth..
its at a inflated bubble premium because bitcoiners are manipulating the price of eth by using it as a arbitrage route when trading the bitcoin markets, causing eth to inflate even without anyone really holding onto ethereum for very long

in short the ethereum market price does not correlate to how many people which to adopt and hoard eth long term. its just a market tool for people to loop through other coins to get back to btc's main market pair

and as i said about desire people dont need to demand btc from the market. they can desire to have bitcoin via mining or selling goods or other methods of utility to get bitcoin unrelated to market purchasing
the desire for bitcoin is different to the market demand

Many altcoins are decentralized. But consumers don't care about decentralization anymore, and most people buy their bitcoin using an app or a broker or through an ETF.

For almost all investors in Bitcoin today, Bitcoin is just a name on an investment app or in their broker's screen.


Nobody even knows what that means, let alone cares about it. Most consumer investors looking to make a profit from Bitcoin aren't trying to avoid their government finding out about their holdings (nor could they since they mostly use centralized, KYC'd brokers to buy Bitcoin).


Again, as I said in the OP, there are hundreds of established altcoins out there now that are very stable and clearly are not scams. Consumers have a lot to choose from now.


The Volvo gets the best security rating of all of the cars, yet Volvo's market share is less than 5% of the market. Why is that? Because most other cars are pretty safe too, and consumers don't don't care about the difference between "super safe" and "super duper safe".

Although it's true, but the good thing is, Bitcoin the only one cryptocurrency that have ETF version which has been accepted by SEC and the only one cryptocurrency being a legal tender.

Which make it's too big to fail.

How can I learn this one?

Is there a site where they show the minimum cost to mine/mint per each coin/token?

It can be one of many way for me to take a consideration before buy a coin/token.

Really? Bitcoin's main advantage is being the oldest and most trusted cryptocurrency. The biggest community of crypto supporters stands behind Bitcoin, not behind some obscure altcoin. Bitcoin has built it's brand and that brand is globally recognizable. OK, Bitcoin isn't the cryptocurrency with the most low cost transactions and fast transaction speed. That's fine and the people are free to choose between faster altcoins. I have nothing against the diversity and competition in the crypto world. Who the hell thinks that BTC will NEVER go down in price?
Of course that Bitcoin will go down in price(sooner or later). This is a volatile market and price drops are as normal as price pumps.

I think we are saying many of the same things here: yes, Bitcoin is the oldest. But as we've seen over and over again in every aspect of capitalism, the "first mover advantage" quickly fades. Some old brands have held on (by drastically changing the products) but most fall by the wayside because they can't evolve.

And if you don't think there are lots of people convinced Bitcoin cannot possibly go down in price you... don't read enough posts on Bitcointalk .



All I can say is that this conversation is about ten billion lightyears from any consumer investment decision today. Nobody cares about any of this when they click on the "BTC" button on their investor app versus "XRP" or any other symbol.

The key to understanding any market is to truly understand how the product in that market is actually used. Right now BTC is a speculation instrument alongside thousands of others--but it happens to be the best known (but that can change over time).

Based on it's technical limitations, Bitcoin will never be able to compete with newer approaches for things outside of the realm of investment instruments. As such, many of Bitcoin's competitors can do what Bitcoin does--as well as other things Bitcoin cannot do.

When you evaluate any technology, always try to understand what actual problem it is solved: how does it make people's lives better? Then, ask yourself what products in that technology area solve that problem the best.

Saying a product is expensive to produce, for instance, is not a value to any consumer. In fact it's a disadvantage.

I don't think this is true. Strike is bitcoin only, IIRC, and there are other similar bitcoin-only services. But, yes, pretty much any exchange accepts more than bitcoin and fiat.

Bitcoin is inherently different. It is empirically not prone to significant protocol changes, which is not the case for anything else. All altcoins can be influenced by their development team. Bitcoin can barely handle another softfork. This means that there is no counterparty risk with bitcoin, and this is why large institutions are now adding it to their portfolios.

You keep throwing this everywhere as if it's a solid fact. Do you have any evidence to support that most people who buy bitcoin as an investment or store of value, keep it on a broker app? I've met several individuals involved in the space, and the only ones who used third parties were either day traders or people who had no idea what is bitcoin and just wanted short-term profits. Everyone else practices self-custody.

They have large holdings, but the total bitcoin are close to 20 million, and their holdings don't add up to something close to that. I would guess (from their reports and on-chain activity) that Coinbase, Binance and other smaller exchanges like Kraken would hold no more than 3 million bitcoin for their customers only. Then, we have the treasuries; about 2.8 million bitcoin there. There are 14 million bitcoin left. Who owns those? People who exercise self-custody.

Again, what's the evidence to that? It's clear to me that those people are into bitcoin only temporarily. The organic rise in market value is due to the reduction of the money in circulation, which happens because big players invest long-term.

Unless you mean "most of the market" in terms of "number of people", in which case I don't see how this is a meaningful metric.