Latte Coffee Statistics :)

Imaging a world of 100 traders each with $1, the most any trader can profit is $99 at the expense of the others. Trading is often regarded as a zero sum game, a dog eat dog world of winners and losers, where speculators are searching for an edge over the others.

But is this really what trading is in a global economy or is it too simplistic?

An economy has multiple elements so you can't take one part in isolation.

Traders do actually provide value. By taking on risk that others wish to shed, they earn a premium that compensates them for providing that capacity. Their activity can improve price discovery and tighten spreads, benefiting everyone.

Market makers and high‑frequency firms continuously post bids and asks, allowing other participants to enter or exit positions quickly and at fair prices. Their compensation (the bid‑ask spread) reflects the service they provide, not a pure transfer of wealth.

Long‑term investors (e.g., pension funds, index funds) channel savings into productive businesses. When a company raises capital and expands, the economy grows, creating jobs and additional wealth that benefits many people—not just the trader who bought the stock.

Hedgers (farmers, manufacturers, airlines) use markets to lock in prices and protect against adverse moves. They pay a cost (the hedge premium) but gain certainty, which can be socially valuable even if the counterparties earn that premium.

When you aggregate all participants—speculators, hedgers, arbitrageurs, liquidity providers—the overall market can be positive‑sum because it improves price discovery, reduces transaction costs, and supports efficient capital formation. The “losses” incurred by speculators are often offset by the gains of hedgers who avoided larger real‑world risks.

You have surplus food, two people, one poor and hungry the other well fed and wealthy, who do you invite for dinner?

You are a bank, two people, one needs a mortgage for a first home, the other is a multimillionaire investing in property, who do you lend to at low rates.

What if interest rates on lending were based on need not risk?

We accept the argument of risk driving lending rates as understandable but condider this;

If you stress a so called higher risk person with higher rates they are more likely to default, so you exacerbate your own risk as a lender, not logical....

If you provide low cost lending to already wealthy people who don't actually need more money then you exacerbate inequality destabilizing society and the economy, not logical....

Well it probably is the most fair option available you have a good point. What does concentration of BTC wealth mean for its future. Power in the hands if a few people in this world, influence due to control of wealth. All problematic.

I got this from bitinfocharts.com, again I don't know if this is totally accurate but looks like around 1.5% of BTC addresses hold 93% of all BTC. That doesn't look very well distributed even though I love the concept of BTC, how can I reconcile this as part of any fair and decentralised economy of the future?

Wealth inequality is an obvious thing, even if this data is not exactly correct it gives the feeling for how wealth is distributed in the current global system. When I think about Bitcoin as a possible part of the solution the first thing I think of is how is BTC distributed?