Unstoppable Money Printer Meets Absolute Scarcity - Part III

This is the third and final installment in this series.

Part I & Part II are required reading. Now, we move onto the dragons.

Dragon #1: The Leviathan Wakes

The single greatest risk to the Bitcoin thesis has always been, and will always be, the “Elite” in control of nation-states.

For the last century, governments have enjoyed a privilege that kings and emperors of old would have killed for: a total monopoly on the creation of money.

Think about it: the ability to print currency is the ultimate superpower. It funds wars, bails out banks, papers over political promises, and projects power across the globe. It is the financial bedrock of the modern state.

And then along comes Bitcoin, a system designed, from its very first line of code, to render that superpower obsolete. Bitcoin doesn’t ask for permission. It doesn’t register with the treasury. It operates in a parallel financial universe, one with its own rules, its own truth, and its own monetary policy set in stone. To a government, this isn’t just an economic curiosity; it’s a direct challenge to its sovereignty. It’s a declaration of independence.

Can’t have that.

So what happens when the Leviathan, the collective power of the world’s governments, finally wakes up and decides this experiment has gone far enough? The attack wouldn’t be subtle.

We would know, because we’ve seen it here in America and elsewhere too.

Governments could decide to mercilessly regulate the on-ramps and off-ramps. They could make it illegal for any regulated bank to process transactions to or from a known cryptocurrency exchange. They could force exchanges to delist coins, to impose impossible surveillance requirements, or shut them down entirely. They can’t kill the network, but they can try to build a wall around it, cutting it off from the traditional financial world and stranding it as a pariah system.

Is that their only attack vector? Of course not.

If you can’t kill it, tax it to death. Imagine a 95% capital gains tax on any profits from Bitcoin. Or a punitive annual wealth tax on any declared holdings. They could make owning the asset so financially painful that it would force all but the most die-hard believers to sell. This is a backdoor ban, a way to crush the incentive without ever having to write the word "illegal."

If I am the NSA with server farms underneath mountainsides, I have more options to attack Bitcoin…

For the truly determined state actor with a multi-billion-dollar budget, there is the nuclear option: a direct assault on the network itself. A government or a coalition of governments could, in theory, amass enough mining hardware to control 51% of the network’s hash rate.

With that power, they couldn’t steal your Bitcoin, but they could wreak havoc. They could double-spend their own transactions. They could block transactions from certain addresses. They could grind the network to a halt, destroying the one thing it sells above all else: certainty. It would be an act of financial cyber-warfare, designed not to profit, but to destroy confidence and prove that the system is not, in fact, beyond their reach.

The counterargument to all this is that it’s a game of incentives. A full-frontal assault by a major power like the United States would be an economic own-goal of epic proportions. It would instantly vaporize trillions of dollars of wealth held by its own citizens AND it would transfer that economic energy to other countries. It would signal to the world that its property rights were conditional. And it would start a game of regulatory arbitrage, where the countries that embraced Bitcoin would see a massive inflow of capital and talent, while the countries that fought it would bleed both. It’s like banning the internet in 1995. You might be able to do it, but you would be guaranteeing your own slide into irrelevance.

The Leviathan is powerful, but it’s rarely suicidal.

The Leviathan has its own problems, too, and perhaps Bitcoin can solve it for them as well. That will be the subject of my next series: How America Wins The Bitcoin Race.

Onto the next dragon.

Dragon #2: The Ghost in the Machine

The entire foundation of the Bitcoin thesis rests on a single pillar: the integrity of its code.

The 21-million-limit, the difficulty adjustment, the entire distributed computer clockwork mechanism—it’s all built on the idea that the software is perfect and the cryptography is unbreakable. But what if it isn’t?

This is the technological black swan, the nightmare scenario that keeps even the most ardent Bitcoiners up at night.

What if, fifteen years into the project, a brilliant cryptographer discovers a bug? What if he or she uses AI to discover an imperceptible flaw? Not a small bug, but a catastrophic one. An inflation bug, for instance, that allows a malicious actor to create new coins beyond the 21 million limit. The moment that flaw was revealed and exploited, the central pillar of absolute scarcity would turn to dust. Confidence would evaporate in seconds.

The price would scream to zero.

It would be the end of the story.

The security of Bitcoin is based on cryptographic algorithms that are, for all practical purposes, impossible for current computers to break. But "current computers" is the key phrase. For years, physicists and computer scientists have been working on quantum computers, machines that operate on the principles of quantum mechanics. A sufficiently powerful quantum computer could break the encryption that protects the private keys to Bitcoin wallets. It could forge signatures and steal funds. While most experts believe this threat is decades away, and that the Bitcoin network could be upgraded with quantum-resistant cryptography long before it becomes a problem, "could" is not the same as "will." The threat hangs over the system.

The defense against this dragon is Bitcoin’s own immune system. The code is open-source, meaning it is constantly being scrutinized by thousands of the world's best software engineers and security researchers. They are all, in effect, bug bounty hunters, incentivized to find and fix flaws before they can be exploited. The network has survived for over a decade in the most hostile environment imaginable, with a multi-trillion-dollar bounty on its head. Its resilience is not an accident; it's the product of this adversarial crucible.

But in the world of technology, nothing is ever guaranteed to be future-proof.

Let’s discuss how the future could fuck Bitcoin.

Dragon #3: The Better Mousetrap

Bitcoin was the first. It was the invention. But technology moves fast. In the years since Satoshi’s white paper, thousands of other cryptocurrencies have been launched, each claiming to be a "better Bitcoin."

They are faster.

They have lower transaction fees.

They have more features, like smart contracts.

This is the "better mousetrap" argument: that Bitcoin is the MySpace of crypto, a pioneering but ultimately doomed technology that will inevitably be supplanted by a superior successor.

The critics will point out that Bitcoin’s technology is slow and clunky. It can only handle a handful of transactions per second, while a payment network like Visa can handle tens of thousands. How can something so inefficient possibly become the foundation of a new global financial system? A competitor could emerge that solves this "scalability trilemma", achieving decentralization, security, and scalability all at once, and leave Bitcoin in the dust.

But this argument fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the competition. Bitcoin is not competing to be the fastest payment network. It is competing to be the most reliable, decentralized, and secure store of value.

And in that competition, there are no points for second place.

Money is a winner-take-all phenomenon, driven by the network effect. The monetary good that is already the biggest, the most trusted, and the most widely held has an enormous advantage. People want to store their wealth in the asset they believe everyone else will also want to store their wealth in. Bitcoin’s lead in this regard is not just substantial; it’s orders of magnitude beyond any competitor.

It has the most security (hash rate), the most decentralization (nodes), the most brand recognition, and the most institutional buy-in. Wall Street has fully embraced it. Corporations that adopt the “bitcoin strategy” are outperforming. It’s mined in every country on earth now, even by sovereign nations using hydro and thermal power.

A new cryptocurrency trying to compete with Bitcoin on the grounds of being a better store of value would be like trying to launch a new social network to compete with Facebook by promising a better user interface. It’s too late. The network has already been built. Other protocols may find success as decentralized application platforms or specialized technologies, but the race to be the world's new reserve asset appears to be over.

Dragon #4: The Great Fizzle

Perhaps the most insidious risk is not a dramatic explosion, but a slow, disappointing fizzle. What if the grand vision never fully materializes? What if Bitcoin succeeds, but only a little bit? What if we get too excited about other technology and become apathetic toward Bitcoin?

In this scenario, Bitcoin doesn't fail, but it doesn't quite win, either. It carves out a niche for itself as "digital gold" a multi-trillion-dollar asset used by institutions and wealthy individuals as an inflation hedge. It absorbs some of the monetary premium, but not all of it. It co-exists indefinitely with fiat currencies, a permanent part of the financial landscape but never the foundation of it. The world muddles through with a hybrid system. The revolution never arrives.

This is, in many ways, the most plausible counterargument because it doesn’t require a cataclysm.

It just requires human inertia and a lack of conviction. Plenty of that to go around.

The problem with this vision of a stable, hybrid future is that it may be an inherently unstable equilibrium. The core thesis of the Collision Model we talked about in Part I is that fiat currencies are melting ice cubes. The existence of a perfect, non-sovereign store of value creates a new and powerful choice for every capital allocator on the planet. As long as fiat currencies are being systematically debased, there will be a constant economic gravity pulling capital towards the superior technology of Bitcoin.

A world where people can choose between an inflationary government money and a deflationary mathematical money is not a world that is likely to stay in balance for long. It creates a game-theoretic dilemma for every individual, corporation, and eventually every central bank. Choosing to hold fiat is an explicit bet against mathematical scarcity. At first, only a few will make the switch. But as the value of the fiat system continues to erode, and the value of the Bitcoin network continues to prove its resilience, the logic of staying in the melting ice cube becomes harder and harder to defend. The "fizzle" scenario assumes that the world can see a perfect lifeboat and choose, en masse and forever, to remain on the slowly sinking ship.

That seems like a brave bet to make.

These dragons are real with varying degrees of true danger to Bitcoin. The path to a Bitcoinized future is not preordained. It is a minefield of political opposition, technological risk, and human skepticism. But acknowledging the dragons is not the same as conceding to them. It is simply a recognition that the story is not over. It is a high-stakes, deeply uncertain, and utterly fascinating contest, and the outcome is still very much in doubt.

The Quiet Click

And so we find ourselves here, at the end of the argument, standing before a strange door. On one side is the world we know: a world of central banks and quantitative easing, of asset bubbles and TINA, a world where the money melts and the quadrillion-dollar financial system feels like a giant, wobbly Jenga tower.

On the other side of the door is a world governed by a different logic: a world of fixed supply and deflationary dividends, a world where saving is rewarded and the money is a solid foundation instead of a running track. The door itself is Bitcoin. And the sound of the global monetary premium beginning to flow through it is a quiet, almost imperceptible click.

This series has been an attempt to understand the physics of that click. We began with the ghost in the machine: the vast, untethered monetary premium born from the 2008 financial crisis, a sea of capital that has distorted the value of every traditional asset it has touched. It has made houses in ordinary cities unaffordable, it has turned the stock market into a de facto savings account, and it has created the illusion of wealth while systematically debasing the unit of account used to measure it. This ocean of capital, we have argued, is not just looking for a return… it is desperately searching for a harbor.

Next we stepped away from the old maps. The classical theories of money, the modern portfolio theories, the commodity analogies—all are useful, but none were built to navigate a world that contained an object of absolute, mathematical scarcity. To chart this new territory, we built a new map, a simple one we called the Collision Model. The model strips the problem down to its two essential, warring components: the infinitely elastic force of the Global Monetary Premium and the perfectly inelastic supply of Bitcoin. The conclusion it forces upon us is as simple as it is profound: when a massive, searching demand meets a fixed, unyielding supply, the price is the only variable that can adjust. The price is not a speculation on future utility; it is the direct, mathematical result of capital absorption.

The journey from here to there, we saw, is not a smooth ride. It is a four-act play filled with human drama. It is the chaotic knife fight of early price discovery, a period of violent volatility that serves as a global marketing campaign. It is The Great Wealth Re-allocation, a silent and peaceful transfer of purchasing power from those who are late to understand the new money to those who are early. It is The Great Stripping, where assets like real estate and gold are cleansed of their monetary premiums and forced to stand on their own economic merits. And finally, if the process runs its course, it is The New Quiet, an incredible world of deflationary economics, where saving is incentivized and capital is allocated with sober, long-term purpose.

You get wealthier every day instead of losing purchasing power to the money printer.

But a good story needs a villain, or at least a healthy dose of doubt. We acknowledged the dragons. The formidable power of The Leviathan state, which could try to strangle, tax, or attack the network. The terrifying possibility of The Ghost in the Machine, a catastrophic bug or quantum leap that could shatter the system's cryptographic foundation. The nagging doubt of The Better Mousetrap, the idea that a superior technology could render Bitcoin obsolete. And the slightly less likely fear of The Great Fizzle, a future where the revolution stalls, leaving Bitcoin as just another asset in a broken system, another special advantage for the rich. These are not trivial risks. They are real, powerful forces that make the outcome of this story anything but certain.

So where does that leave us? It leaves us in the most interesting of places: the present. We are living through the early stages of the collision.

The bar fight is turning into a knife fight right in front of us.

The most urgent task for economists is to develop a rigorous methodology for quantifying the Global Monetary premium. How much of the value of the London property market is a monetary premium? What percentage of the Nikkei's market cap is a hedge against the debasement of the Yen? Answering these questions with academic rigor would move the model from a theoretical framework to a predictive tool.

The most fascinating drama of the coming decade will be the game theory of nation-state adoption. What happens when the dragon fully leans into Bitcoin?

We have already seen the first move with El Salvador. What happens when a larger, more significant nation follows suit? What happens when two rival nations find themselves on opposite sides of the Bitcoin divide? Modeling the strategic incentives, the prisoner's dilemmas, and the potential for a new, non-violent form of geopolitical competition, a race for hashrate instead of a race for arms, is a rich and vital field of study for political scientists and economists alike.

We have almost no living memory of a functional, growth-oriented deflationary economy. The psychological and sociological impacts of such a world are a complete unknown. Would it foster a new renaissance of long-term thinking, art, and science, as some have argued? Or would it lead to economic stagnation and a hoarding-induced liquidity crisis, as mainstream economists have long feared? I personally believe much of science is “captured” so papers that support Pro-Elite concepts like Modern Monetary Theory and the fear of deflation are pervasive in society. We have nothing to fear from technology lowering prices and rising our quality of life.

In the end, the story of Bitcoin is a story about a choice. For over a century, the world has run on a specific kind of money: political, elastic, and inflationary. It has produced incredible growth and technological progress, but it has come at a cost. It has created a system that is inherently unstable, that encourages debt, and that quietly steals purchasing power from the average citizen.

Satoshi Nakamoto’s Genesis Block did not just launch a piece of software. It offered an alternative.

It created, for the first time, a viable escape hatch. It presented a choice between the money of the state and the money of mathematics.

The collision of the quadrillion-dollar monetary premium with Bitcoin’s 21 million units is not just a financial event. It is the real-time manifestation of that choice. It is the collective decision-making of billions of people, all acting in their own self-interest, playing out on a global stage. The outcome is not written in any code. It will be determined by the messy, unpredictable, and ultimately human process of adoption. It will be determined by which story people choose to believe, and which system they choose to trust with the fruits of their labor. The quiet click we are beginning to hear is the sound of the world starting to select Bitcoin.

Friends: in addition to the 17% discount for becoming annual paid members, we are excited to announce an additional 10% discount when paying with Bitcoin. Reach out to me, these discounts stack on top of each other!

👋 Thank you for reading Wealth Systems.

I want to learn what topics interest you, so connect with me on X.

…or you can find me on LNKD if that’s your deal.

I started Wealth Systems in 2023 to share the systems, technology, and mindsets that I encountered on Wall Street. I am a Wall St banker became ₿itcoin nerd, ML engineer & family office investor.

💡The BIG IDEA is share practical knowledge so we can each build and optimize our own wealth engines and combine them into a wealth system.

To help continue our growth please Like, Comment and Share this.

NOTE: The content provided on this blog is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, accounting, or legal advice. The author and the blog owner cannot guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information presented and are not responsible for any errors or omissions or for the results obtained from the use of such information.

All information on this site is provided 'as is', with no guarantee of completeness, accuracy, timeliness, or of the results obtained from the use of this information, and without warranty of any kind, express or implied. The opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the site or its associates.

Any investments, trades, speculations, or decisions made on the basis of any information found on this site, expressed or implied herein, are committed at your own risk, financial or otherwise. Readers are advised to conduct their own independent research into individual stocks before making a purchase decision. In addition, investors are advised that past stock performance is no guarantee of future price appreciation.

The author is not a broker/dealer, not an investment advisor, and has no access to non-public information about publicly traded companies. This is not a place for the giving or receiving of financial advice, advice concerning investment decisions, or tax or legal advice. The author is not regulated by any financial authority.

By using this blog, you agree to hold the author and the blog owner harmless and to completely release them from any and all liabilities due to any and all losses, damages, or injuries as a result of any investment decisions you make based on information provided on this site.

Please consult with a certified financial advisor before making any investment decisions.