๐ช๐ต๐ ๐ฎ๐ญ ๐ ๐ถ๐น๐น๐ถ๐ผ๐ป?
I was recently asked this at @LuganoPlanBโs conference, and admittedly, my answer could have been better. My responses are based solely on ๐ญ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ๐ถ๐ช๐ด๐ต๐ช๐ค ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฃ๐ข๐ฃ๐ช๐ญ๐ช๐ต๐ช๐ฆ๐ด, remember, not actual knowledge. ๐
But thanks to a little human intervention, I have a much better answer for you now.
This question is asked a lot, so be sure to ๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ฐ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ข๐ณ๐ฌ๐ this, and ๐ด๐ฉ๐ข๐ณ๐ฆ๐ it with others.
Letโs goโฌ๏ธ

Itโs unlikely that Satoshiโs initial choice was to have a hard cap of 21 million coins, and then work everything else around that. Rather, the max supply of 21 million was the end result of 3 architectural decisions that are more foundational to Bitcoin's design:
๐ญ. Average block time
๐ฎ. Coin distribution
๐ฏ. Number of blocks in a halving cycle
๐๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐ด๐ฒ ๐๐น๐ผ๐ฐ๐ธ ๐ง๐ถ๐บ๐ฒ
Since Satoshi was a human (most likely), he would have thought in round numbers, and wanted the average block time to be a round number of minutes. 1 minute was too short to mitigate against possible internet latency issues, an hour would be much too long for a single confirmation, but 10 minutes was just right.
๐๐ผ๐ถ๐ป ๐๐ถ๐๐๐ฟ๐ถ๐ฏ๐๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป
Simplistically speaking, there were 3 ways that Bitcoin could have issued new coins to miners:
๐ญ. Keep the rate of distribution the same at an arbitrary amount, and make it end suddenly at an arbitrary point in time or amount of issued coins
๐ฎ. Start out with a small distribution and slowly increase it with time before suddenly stopping at an arbitrary limit
๐ฏ. Start out with a large distribution and gradually decrease it over time until the number of new coins runs out
Only this last one makes any sense. The others would hinder Bitcoin's early adoption, interfere with its maturing to rely on transaction fees, and shock the network when suddenly no more coins are distributed.
And in order for the distribution rate to diminish asymptotically, the number of new coins issued with each block would need to be halved at regular intervals. This means that 50% of the total supply would need to have been issued at the end of the first cycle.
It's only fitting then that the block subsidy for that cycle be 50 bitcoin, ๐ด๐ฐ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ข๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ต ๐ธ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ญ๐ฅ ๐ข๐ญ๐ธ๐ข๐บ๐ด ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ง๐ญ๐ฆ๐ค๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ข๐ช๐ฏ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ค๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ข๐จ๐ฆ ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ข๐ช๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐ข๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ต๐ฉ๐ข๐ต ๐ค๐บ๐ค๐ญ๐ฆ.
๐ก๐๐บ๐ฏ๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐น๐ผ๐ฐ๐ธ๐ ๐ถ๐ป ๐ฎ ๐๐ฎ๐น๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐๐ฐ๐น๐ฒ
Like with average block times, Satoshi likely wanted to keep the halving cycles as close to a round number of years and blocks as possible. 210,000 blocks, or just under 4 years, made the most sense, and allowed enough time for the market to adjust to any issuance rate before it gets halved again.
And then itโs a very nice "coincidence" that with ๐ฎ๐ญ0,000 blocks in each cycle, working together with the distribution method and the average block time, the total number of bitcoin adds up to just under ๐ฎ๐ญ,000,000.

So remember: ๐ฎ๐ญ ๐บ๐ถ๐น๐น๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ถ๐ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ง๐๐จ๐ช๐ก๐ฉ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ถ๐๐ฐ๐ผ๐ถ๐ปโ๐ ๐๐ป๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐น๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐๐ฟ๐๐ฐ๐๐๐ฟ๐ฒ, not an arbitrary number simply chosen by Satoshi.
But why do ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ think Bitcoin has a maximum of 21 million coins, and not another number? Is there more significance to that number than initially meets the eye?
Let me know in the ๐ฐ๐ผ๐บ๐บ๐ฒ๐ป๐๐!โฌ๏ธ
Know anyone who has been asking this question?
๐ฆ๐ต๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ this post with them, and ๐ฏ๐ผ๐ผ๐ธ๐บ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ธ๐ it, so you can have the answer ready whenever you need it.

