What will happen if I firmly refuse to buy BTC?

Author: Cai Leilei

I saw a very interesting point of view, saying that Bitcoin has nothing to do with ordinary people. It’s only related to you if you get involved; and if you don’t get involved, then it’s just internal cutting, and the win or loss has nothing to do with you. It doesn’t matter if it rises to 1 million dollars or 10 million dollars per coin, because it’s just a zero-sum game casino.

Is it true? Whether it’s Bitcoin, gold, or houses in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Shenzhen, what are they fundamentally? It’s the process of participating in the redistribution of wealth. If I buy something for 1 yuan and you buy it for 1 million, does that mean your 10 years of labor belong to me? You say you don’t buy, similarly, you can also not buy houses in Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Shenzhen. You can buy nothing at all, so what form does your wealth serve as a storage medium? Cash? In the past 20 years, if you held cash while others bought houses, can you really say your labor has not been deprived? You’re wrong. When the gears of fate start turning, whether you actively participate or not, you will be involved.

The resources of this world are limited and will be allocated to specific individuals through various carriers and rules. For example, when we work and create value for society, we are participating in the allocation. Those who create more value will get a bigger share of the pie, while those who create less value and stay at home will only have themselves to blame for being left out. Does it mean that if you don’t consume, the amount of money you have won’t be cut? No, it’s not. Money is just a way to calculate the proportion of social resources. If the country cannot get your money, it will simply open up new opportunities to grab your money, and the total amount will become 100,000 or even 1 million. They don’t need your money, and you will naturally lose it because under the premise that social resources do not change, you can only exchange for 1/10,000 or 1/100,000 of resources.

So I said that the absolute value of money doesn’t mean anything; it’s the proportion of the total amount that determines how much you can exchange for. In the agricultural civilization, facing the yellow earth and back to the sky, a person with a hoe can obtain social resources through creating social wealth. However, in the industrial civilization, one person can do the work of 1000 people. By using more efficient tools, one person grabs 1000 shares. Is it unfair? No, it’s just that you don’t have the right tools to grab, so you get robbed.

This is ‘creating logic’, which is very understandable, and many people also agree - you see, although he has taken 1000 units of resources, he has made a contribution to society 1000 times that of an ordinary person, which is very reasonable. However, the logic of Bitcoin is not easy to understand, because it is financial logic, predictive logic, consensus logic, risk logic, shareholder logic. Given that we have had a long period of misdirection here, there is a natural misunderstanding and aversion to this ‘earning money by judgment’ in user education, so many people cannot understand it and think it is unfair.

Actually, it’s easy to understand. If there’s something that everyone wants, no matter what it is, even if it’s just a pretentious painting, everyone wants to hang it in their own homes. So, should I make money from this ‘awareness’ that ‘more people may want this’? Of course, because I also bear the risk of ‘if no one wants it, I’m stuck with it’.

So it’s simple. If more people want Bitcoin in the future, everyone will put their hard-earned money into this pool to participate in the game of wealth redistribution. And as everyone keeps investing their wealth into it, it will inevitably be at the expense of other pools. Can you understand this? Let me give you an example. In this world, there are only two pools: the stock market and the cryptocurrency market. As people continuously invest their wealth and resources into the cryptocurrency market, funds are being drawn out of the stock market. As a result, the prices of every stock plummet. Those who chose the wrong pool had their wealth taken away, right? Even if you don’t actively participate and only hold cash, you’re still passively playing the game, because in an expanding pool, if you don’t grab, you lose. And if you don’t grab fast enough, you still lose.

So is it a game of ‘mutual cutting’ among group members? Of course not, as new wealth keeps coming in, how can it be called ‘mutual cutting’? Bitcoin is a benchmark. The more coins you have as a proportion of the total, the more fiat currency you can allocate to enter the market. It is the basis for allocating fiat currency within the market. You say it doesn’t create new value? Then let me start popularizing it from the value of being the ‘world’s first and largest peer-to-peer, trustless, decentralized value transfer system’. Just think about how much the internet is worth. If you were a ‘founder of the internet’ or a ‘founder of SWIFT’, how much would your stocks have multiplied over the past few decades? You might already be the richest person in the world.

You can choose not to buy Bitcoin, not to buy anything else, but remember, cash is also an asset. Essentially, using cash to occupy the proportion of wealth in society, participating in the allocation of social resources, is the same as using any other asset to participate in allocation. What’s the difference? Some assets will gather an increasingly larger consensus, so other people’s wealth will flow to your side; while some assets will lose consensus, then your wealth will flow to other people’s side.

This game, regardless of whether you are willing or not, as long as you are a social person, is mandatory participation, and no one can escape from it.