Their wealth depends on bitcoin keeping the properties it currently has. For instance they could try to merge a code change that doubles the balances for early adopters, but it would immediately destroy their wealth because people would stop using the currency.
The people who got the initial bitcoin and held onto it still have the majority of it. I don't see that changing. It's not healthy for the monetary system having most people try to just get rich by holding onto the currency.
That or they are certain they will get burned sooner or later, and therefore even if they tank the value of their holdings it's at a time of their choosing and with an amount that's predictable.
Contrast with the scenario where they keep doing it, steadily increasing their bitcoin holdings and even seeing the proportion of sales using bitcoin increase… and THEN hit a wall, not of their own choosing, and see the value collapse.
Even if they are not dumping their holdings at all, there's still a case to be made for pulling a plug at a time they control, over an amount they control. If it collapses, they can put a hard limit on how much they lose: that being, the previous value of their entire bitcoin holdings.
That's quite the mental gymnastics: no - they won't be left behind, unless regulatory capture forces people to use Bitcoin vs. say USD - which is exactly why they won't be left behind, and exactly why most people aren't going to buy Bitcoin because why the hell would they want to decrease their wealth by paying into a system that transfers wealth from later adopters to earlier adopters? It's a Ponzi-Pyramid scheme because of the MLM structure + the rest of society doesn't want to be the ones "left holding the bag" as it's said in Ponzi schemes.
People aren't stupid, though there are greedy and gullible people who like to gamble and speculate - and their hope that Bitcoin will have some competitive advantage over any numerous other structures that aren't incentivized via financial gain - but are actually good for society - and not leading to "consensus" via financial gain but through actual democratic processes where, if it makes sense to, a blockchain not structured like a Ponzi-Pyramid scheme can be voted into use by its citizens.
It'll be interesting to see what happens when a few people own 90% of the bitcoin and everyone else just sort of shrugs and starts using a new cryptocurrency, instead.
It won't change the way people think about money, but it will certainly change the way they think about your money. That is, they'll stop using it and start using someone else's money (bitcoin, Euros, whatever) that doesn't expire.
I guess the bitcoin economy is ruthless on its entrepreneurs and users.
Failure to backup, improper trust in individuals, improper understanding of the technology, poor security practice, and bad decisions will wipe out early adopters' wealth continuously and relentlessly.
I doubt we will see much of the early adopters retaining their bitcoin wealth from these early days. Those who did are either incredibly lucky, or incredibly competent.
I am an early adopter of bitcoin and I hope to survive or avoid the many dangers and poor decisions that ensnared many of peers on the road to bitcoin richness.
While I hope Bitcoin ultimately succeeds I know the early investors will lose millions building infrastructure that gets thrown away when late arrivers come and blow away the early adopters.
It couldn't happen to a more deserving set of twins.
So... you'll have miners who have sunk huge investments into powerful computers who are unhappy to see their investments become worthless, and who have the computer power to force high transaction fees onto Bitcoin users. That'll certainly be interesting to watch.
Somebody is going to lose big time. The question is whether Bitcoin as a currency will survive in the fallout.
reply