It could be argued that Bitcoin could never deliver on the scarcity promise anyway.
If shitcoins are on a security spectrum with Bitcoin, then they could all be seen as (shittier) Bitcoins. The qty of digital money being infinite, and thus somewhat irrelevant.
I'm with you. So wrt "cant be debased", it's not perfect there, it could be debased by new shitcoins, by skewed issuance (e.g. satoshi premine), or some code change (e.g. Peter Todd j/k).
No it's not perfect there, but it's about the best we can do, or have done, and that has reached a reasonable size. The fair issuance is largely complete, and that's quite a milestone.
I realized after my reply that I pretty much agree with the thesis that custodial is a bigger threat vectore than the network effect, and that you were right to state the way that you seemed to.
We do have a problem rn with coinbase or bitgo or etfs holding a lot of coins. Isnt a quick fix to that, but people can be encouraged to self custody more, or they might try and regulate against it. So certainly non-custody is a bigger threat than is percieved.
Bitcoin was indeed primarily created to offer an alternative to trusted third parties. The needle has gone too far in the direction of custody, and moving it back is a good thing to advocate for. I tend to think in trade-offs but of course that's less persuasive. KUTGW!
