It doesn't rise or narrow for you any more or less than anyone else. Whether you have 1 ₿ or 0.1 ₿, obtaining more would depend on work and risk.
The only argument here that makes sense is saying that someone has obtained Bitcoin "illicitly" by benefiting from printed fiat to obtain Bitcoin, but you can also put that down to intelligence. They probably would have been capable of doing the same if starting from zero.
Many people aren't buying Bitcoin with strong fiat.
The person buying 3k Euros worth of Bitcoin on a lark, didn't take on more risk or exert more effort than the one buying 3k Turkish Lira or Zimbabwe Dollars worth. They're just purchasing with a stronger currency.
Don't get me wrong.
Still smart to convert those Liras to Sats.
Just saying that the rich will always be among us, and it will continue to mostly be an artefact of environment, ancestry, and chance.
Bitcoin might actually make that worse, in the short to medium term, as there is no new supply of money to access and the hodlers depress velocity.
Bitcoin is a commodity and some people simply have more purchasing power because of their currency.
Bitcoin doesn't redistribute wealth. It allows for wealth conservation. You can only conserve what you already have.
Exactly. That's essentially the caveat I mentioned just extended internationally. I guess you can argue that this is "being close to the money printer".
Remains true that once everything is Bitcoin there's no more cantillionaire effect. Once everyone is competing, those with more Bitcoin who don't produce bleed wealth.
Yes, long-term there might be some realignment.
Although, they can use their Bitcoin to skew markets or capture income-generating assets, to prevent competition from rising and ensure their permanent superiority.
I doubt the Rothschilds will spend their Bitcoin on slot machines in Vegas.
Maintaining ownership of income generating assets and keeping them productive over time involves work and taking risks to adapt them to changing times. If they can do that, then they ought to be the ones doing it.
Most assets are maintained (the productiveness of, the ownership of) today with fiat subsidies.
You can just own assets and demand rents. I guess you would have to build armies to protect your rents, which is effort, but probably not very productive.
It'll be like in the medieval ages, under the gold standard, where people who owner the gold make the rules and demand tolls through gatekeeping and soldiers.
I think that's only possible when you have an illiterate peasantry without the tools necessary to mass organize and shoot you.
Yes. Which is why I think Bitcoin will lead to peasant organisation through government and laws.
