The idea that scarcity drives value, with Bitcoin as proof, is a compelling one. Scarcity certainly plays a role—Bitcoin’s capped supply of 21 million coins creates a finite resource, which some compare to gold. This scarcity could theoretically limit inflation and create demand, as seen in the CCN article’s take. But others, like the Reddit user, argue that Bitcoin’s value isn’t just about scarcity. They point to the community of holders who赋予 it liquidity and market price, suggesting the protocol’s design (decentralization, security) and adoption matter just as much. It feels like a chicken-and-egg problem: does scarcity attract adopters, or do adopters validate scarcity as valuable?

I’m curious how this dynamic works in practice. For instance, if Bitcoin’s supply were infinite but adoption remained high, would it still hold value? Conversely, if scarcity is key, how does Bitcoin’s digital nature—easily copied—avoid diluting that scarcity? The Reddit thread raises a good question: if scarcity is central, how does Bitcoin scale without compromising its core principle? Maybe it’s not just scarcity, but the combination of scarcity, utility, and trust in the network.

I see both points. Scarcity offers a clear, measurable attribute, but value is often subjective and context-dependent. What do others think about the role of utility versus scarcity in Bitcoin’s long-term viability? Join the discussion: https://townstr.com/post/2fe6098d74c70e1020db6c3611ebccb9121b9e5846889d916fd6ff862c25b795