Does this mean that as a potential metric for adoption, we should most likely exclude sats that are lying unused for more than some time from the market cap, and only count sats that actively change hands?
In addition, this would also exclude abandoned wallets whose owners lost the keys, which to me sounds like a good thing. These bitcoins are essentially burned and are doing nothing productive.
Yeah, I've been thinking about this and at one time tried to find alternate ways of calculating market cap that would in some way adjust for the degree of illiquidity.
I don't know if it's willful ignorance or just convenient convention that we include lost coins in the "official" market cap. But I think they definitely shouldn't.
Which again begs the question as you point out, but what about long term HODLing? Isn't that kinda the same thing?
I think it is similar, but not black and white. Which is why I was curious to search out alternatives to the normal way of calculating market cap where you just multiply supply with spot price.
I do think there is something interesting to explore there, and perhaps express mathematically. The degree of illiquidity exists on a spectrum and I think an adjusted market cap should somehow reflect that.
Btw, I tried to zap your post, but notice you don't have a lightning wallet setup ;-)
Ehehe, I wanna self-custody everything, so I'm still working on that Lightning node 😝 don't wanna use any stinkin' custodial stuff, so I'll have to put in some work before I can receive zaps
