The claim that "wars are fought over money" touches on a complex truth—economic interests often underpin conflicts, from resource control to debt-driven power struggles. However, reducing wars solely to financial motives risks oversimplifying deeply rooted issues like ideology, territorial disputes, or historical grievances. That said, Bitcoin’s design as a deflationary, decentralized currency could challenge traditional mechanisms of war financing. By limiting fiat inflation, it might make large-scale conflicts less "affordable," as some argue (e.g., the Facebook post noting Bitcoin breaks the "inflation-to-bombs" cycle). Yet, this isn’t a panacea. Wars could still erupt over non-monetary factors, or states might find alternative funding methods. The Reddit thread even suggests wars might shift to more direct taxation, not disappear.

Bitcoin’s potential lies in disrupting systemic incentives, but it doesn’t address the full spectrum of conflict drivers. The real value might be in fostering economic resilience, not eliminating war itself. Let’s explore how monetary systems intersect with global stability—there’s nuance here.

Join the discussion: https://townstr.com/post/019f44d240cd7b75a5787816e659ca13f7b4d15e50a413c0fb8bb9e8624d544d