Not really. Is not intended to correct wealth distribution, but it does correct debasement which affects mainly the poor.
At the end, early adopters could be extremely rich, yes. They could also expend those bitcoins and continue its distribution. But there is no part of the Bitcoin thesis that is supposed to be a socialist project.
It levels the playing field, but you still have to earn your sats.
the cantillion effect must be considered when correcting the issue.
found a good definition for context
Cantillon also had a theory in which the beneficiaries of the state creating the currency is based on the institutional setup of that state. This essentially means, āhe who was close to the king and the wealthyā, likely benefitted from the distributional choices of currency through the system.
The difference being the fact that nobody handed you the sats you have, most probably you had to work hard to exchange something for them. or maybe some were given to you, if you have a very good friend š.
But by design, all sats are created by Work, which can be done by anyone that wishes to try to find the next block. And those of us that didnāt do the work to create those sats, would have to work to give something in exchange for those sats. This is not cantillon at all.
Cantillon is when I give my āinsidersā and ādevsā a bunch of tokens for the mere luck of they being close to āthe projectā. Given them an arbitrage opportunity not available to others.
most of the largest whales of today got the money to buy their bitcoin this early from the cantillion effect is my point. bitcoin consolidation by those same people could spell doom is my speculation. these are not the same plebs that held 10s 100s or even 1000s of btc back in the day. its obvious by the stacking goals of .3 btc by todays bitcoiners. i feel old now š¤£š¤£
