Breaking Bitcoin: Liquidity Traps, Speculative Frenzy, FIAT Entanglements

Bitcoin, heralded as the harbinger of a monetary revolution—a digital messiah promising salvation from the perceived failings of debased fiat currencies. With almost evangelical piety, its proponents exalt its immutable ledger, capped supply, and the utopian ideal of liberation from central banks and inflation’s corrosive grasp. But, beneath this seductive narrative lies a glaring paradox—more like a cognitive dissonance embedded within its very design—that undermines the lofty promises of its most ardent advocates.

The illusory coin’s fundamental failure is not merely a consequence of its decentralization-focused architecture or its necessarily extreme volatility but, more critically, its inability to succeed where it matters most for a currency, which deeply concerns facets of liquidity. At its core, a currency’s supremacy is determined by its capacity to deliver seamless and abundant liquidity alongside practical utility in both local and more global markets. Bitcoin, with its rigid deflationary model and accompanying detriments: poor scalability, fragmented infrastructure, and low-information late adoption, proves woefully incapable of meeting these dynamic demands. Instead, it embodies a fictionalized and caricatured version of a sound money system—one that lacks the reasonable scalability or actual adaptability to function within a real-world economic framework.

Moreover, Bitcoin functions less as a stand-alone alternative to fiat currencies and more as a ‘parasitic’ entity feeding on the endemic lapses of a fledgling, utterly financialized fiat ecosystem. Its valuation, liquidity, and utility are inextricably tied to fiat infrastructure—from the pricing of goods in fiat terms, to the conversion gateways that dominate Bitcoin transactions. Far from achieving monetary independence, Bitcoin’s real-world quasi-dependence on fiat systems for widespread feasibility underscores its fundamental inability to function as a fully autonomous and viable currency. Instead, it thrives as a wishful wedge issue within the very framework it profess to disrupt and ultimately displace, parasitically extracting pseudo-value and an emotional narrative of independence from fiat systems while offering little in return beyond speculative allure, a culture of shell games, and energy-intensive costs due to its outdated proof-of-work design.

Bitcoin prioritizes scarcity and decentralization—traits paraded as virtues—at the glaring expense of liquidity. What is breathlessly, extraneously, and capitalistically promoted as a universal medium of exchange is, in both theoretical postulation and alleged practical application, a speculative chimera propped up by faith and faux fanaticism rather than substantive utility or any semblance of financial and societal soundness. This critique seeks to dismantle the overall grand myth of Bitcoin’s suitability, its purported adoption, and the oft-repeated claims of its use cases as a conventional currency, exposing the speculative underpinnings that define its much precarious role.

This precarious paradox becomes more pronounced when examining Bitcoin’s most lauded characteristic, that is its fixed supply of 21 million divisible coins. Celebrated as a definitive antidote to inflationary fiat currencies, this scarcity purportedly guarantees long-term value. While the deflationary model appeals to investors seeking a digital store of ‘value’, it fundamentally undermines Bitcoin’s viability as a system-scalable currency, particularly in its alignment with lending, credit finance, and broader economic integration.

Most conceptually deflationary currencies creates a powerful hoarding incentive, as users anticipate that holding e.g. Bitcoin will yield higher returns over time compared to investing or spending it. This dynamic suppresses circulation and drastically slows what monetarists term «money velocity»—the rate at which money moves through an economy—critical factors for sustaining growth and liquidity. Unlike fiat systems, which adjust their money supply to support economic expansion and flexibility, Bitcoin’s inflexible design stifles liquidity and fosters systemic stagnation, inverting the methodological quantitative differences as proof of it’s supposed monetary Infallibility. However, the very scarcity that entices speculative investors—those motivated by opportunistic and often cynical gains—seals Bitcoin’s fate as a failure in terms of being an effective functional medium of exchange.

The tendency toward hoarding manifests most glaringly in the ownership distribution of Bitcoin, where a fundamentalist-maximalist fanatic «hodling» culture has clearly emerged. Also, large holders—or «whales»—control an ever-increasing and disproportionate share of the supply, with estimates suggesting that a mere 2% of wallets hold the majority of all current Bitcoins. This concentration arguably mirrors, if not surpasses, the potential wealth inequalities observed in traditional financial systems, undermining Bitcoin’s promise of decentralization and so-called «fairness».

Unlike fiat systems, which employ credit creation and taxation as core mechanisms for redistributing wealth (however flawed or poorly executed they may be), Bitcoin not only replicates but frequently exacerbates the structural inequalities entrenched in traditional finance, consolidating wealth in the hands of a select few—many of whom are the very same leveraged elites it assert to oppose. These holders, often synonymous with the financial elite Bitcoin purports to challenge, exploit their early adoption advantage to secure disproportionate influence while not even negligibly contributing to any real future circulation or possible institutional implementation. What might be termed inclusivity by «left-wing» critics is glaringly and deliberately absent, further exposing Bitcoin’s alignment with other entrenched inequities and puritanical political obstacles that cater to the already ill-fated majority, which supposedly all various Bitcons will alleviate.

Relatert: «Kasino-konservatismen»: Det nyttige idiot-liberale Tech-høyre i Donald Trumps tjeneste og skygge

The currency’s concentration under the guise of «self-ownership», ostensibly including retail-held Bitcoin and ETF trading, also stifles liquidity while intensifying general sell pressures. By making Bitcoin easier to trade, these mechanisms magnify volatility, destabilizing the system and discouraging its adoption as a functional currency. The «whales» face no substantial incentive to circulate their holdings, and any regulatory potential changes to Bitcoin’s code to perhaps incentivize redistribution would fundamentally and immediately contradict its core principles of scarcity and supposed decentralization.

Instead, Bitcoin functions as a superlative speculative asset, benefiting the increasingly late «early adopters» while rendering broader economic participation practically impossible. This failure stems from its infamous pyramid-like structure, where price appreciation and speculative mania override any supposed ideals of decentralization or inclusivity, leaving no room for the foundational incentives of a truly functional currency to permeate.

Fiat dependency and symbolic fragility

Bitcoin’s value rests precariously on a speculative pricing scheme, feeding «parasitically» on both delusion and understandable disenchantment with fiat systems while offering little in terms of functional utility. Its appeal lies not in its capacity to serve as a medium of exchange but in the promise of scarcity-driven price appreciation—an allure propelled more by frustration with fiat failures and the prospect of enrichment through «hodling» than by any inherent merit. This dynamic entrenches a cycle of speculative demand, where users acquire Bitcoin not for its supposed practicality, but merely to profit from its ever-inflating value with the obvious implications that they are sure to sell at some point, all the while propagandizing its supposed «inherent» value and purported viability as sound «money»—affirmations that in reality lack true substance.

Unlike fiat currencies, which derive their pseudo-value from government backing or commodities with intrinsic utility, Bitcoin’s contrived worth is almost entirely symbolic—a narrative built on collective sentiment and speculative belief. This dependency renders Bitcoin highly unstable and vulnerable to systemic «rug pulls», where its synthetic value could collapse under the weight of its own conceptual and technical fragility. Bitcoin’s foundational code, far from being robust, is readily replicable by state actors or competing blockchain initiatives. Its supposed uniqueness is therefore anything but immune to technological obsolescence. Attempts to address these inherent flaws by layering additional functionalities onto its existing framework do little to resolve the persistent issues of scalability, inefficiency, and instability, and are not universally exclusive to the Bitcoin code. Such efforts, while heralded by its community as pseudo-innovative, in the end fail to properly address the core weaknesses that cement Bitcoin’s systemic inadequacy.

Fiat currencies, despite their flaws and instances of institutional corruption, maintain dominance through unmatched liquidity and scalability—factors often overlooked or conveniently dismissed by Bitcoin proponents, either through willful ignorance, sheer intellectual insufficiency or some of both. Central banks stabilize economies by adjusting the money supply, while credit systems facilitate widespread access to capital. These mechanisms—frequently antagonized by the Bitcoin crowd to bolster the appeal of their own Frankenstein-like creation—sustain circulation, foster inclusivity, and drive economic growth. These essential functions are ones that Bitcoin, by its very design and structure, cannot replicate or meaningfully mimic.

Moreover, redistributive policies such as progressive taxation and social programs further enhance fiat’s inclusivity by mitigating wealth inequality—a baseline criterion for economic functionality. In stark contrast, Bitcoin’s decentralized framework offers no comparable mechanisms, rendering it inherently incapable of addressing the disparities it so boldly contend to transcend, all while being lauded as a divine innovation.

Bitcoin’s not-so-revolutionary potential lies not in its promise to replace fiat currencies but in its role as a digital store of value—a perhaps appealing attribute but one that, in truth, holds limited practical worth. Despite the hollow, price-elevating hyperbole pushed by its proponents and its allure as a speculative investment vehicle, these very features—marketed as protective or transformative—sequentially proving its failure as a functional currency. The divergence between Bitcoin’s increasingly mass-marketed wealth potential and its real-world limitations, underscores a fundamental truth: it is a niche asset and a meme-driven uprising that caught fire—not a the monetary revolution many are so financially inclined and incentivized to portray it as.

In practice, Bitcoin operates more as a Ponzi scheme than anything else imaginable. Also, it has become another mechanism for financial elites to navigate and exploit troublesome times by adding more instruments, inventions, and outright frauds to their ever-expanding toolbox. Remember, these are the same people who weaponized mortgages, turned the housing market into a ticking time bomb, and left millions homeless while pocketing billions. They are architects of chaos and nonsense, thriving on complexity and obfuscation, and Bitcoin in the same regard provides yet another veil for their opportunism.

Far from liberating the global economy, Bitcoin serves as a distraction—a shiny object waved in front of the desperate and disillusioned, promising salvation but delivering little more than speculative mania and effectively idiocy. Its proponents talk of decentralization and freedom, but the reality is a system that consolidates wealth, heightens inequalities, and perpetuates the very inequities it pretends to oppose.

This is not a revolution; it’s a rerun. Bitcoin is the latest chapter in a well-worn playbook where financial elites manipulate narratives, inflate bubbles, and profit from the inevitable collapse—all while blaming the victims for believing in the illusion. And so far from ‘liberating’ the global economy from the iron grip of so-called mafia-like central banks, Bitcoin remains confined by its own flawed design—destined to coexist with the fiat systems it contorts around. Ironically. Bitcoin was never truly designed to challenge these systems meaningfully; its primary purpose appears instead to inflate the price of an illusory, intellectually flawed, and fanatical idea with an even more limited use case than what it concurrently proselytize.

Unproductive physicality and artificial scarcity

Bitcoin’s much-lauded scarcity is frequently conveyed as its crowning achievement, yet in practice, it acts as a severe limitation. Far from being a revolutionary feature, but an actual conceptual bug, this self-imposed constraint hinders Bitcoin’s ability to meet the dynamic demands of an increasingly complex and interconnected economy. Rather than fostering liquidity and adaptability, it creates a system where hoarding is incentivized over active circulation. Without fundamental changes—such implementing measures like negative interest rates on dormant wallets—Bitcoin’s rigid scarcity stifles the very dynamism required for broad economic utility and sustainable growth.

Relevant: «CBDC»/«SBP»: «Digitale sentralbankpenger»—Et teknokratisk bedrag med kleptokratisk tillitskontroll

Rare-metals-backed currencies, by some considerable contrast, align scarcity with productivity and industrial utility. ‘Boring’ precious metals like gold and silver derive their value from tangible, real-world applications, driving innovation and contributing to economic growth. Bitcoin’s artificial scarcity and hodl-servitude, however, serves no such purpose. It exists purely as a speculative mechanism within a closed ecosystem, offering no meaningful contributions to broader economic or societal advancement.

The artificial scarcity also underscores Bitcoin’s dependence on weak fiat systems. Despite its lofty credo of decentralization and financial liberation, Bitcoin’s valuation, transactional relevance, and infrastructure remain deeply tethered.. to fiat currencies. Its market presence relies on conversion gateways and fiat price benchmarks, exposing its scarcity as little more than a symbolic construct rather than a practical feature. Comparatively, rare-metals-backed currencies operate independently of fiat systems, providing a stable and trusted foundation for economic transactions.

The alleged environmental costs of Bitcoin’s scarcity further highlight its actual flaws. Its proof-of-work mining model potentially consumes staggering amounts of energy, much of it derived from already effective eastern bound outsourced energy sources, while producing no material or industrial value. Unlike the extraction of rare metals, which drives technological progress and supports quite a few of important industries, Bitcoin’s energy-intensive processes exist solely to sustain an artificially scarce and excessively valorized ledger for the sake of no real anonymity ‘on top’, which allegedly is related to some kind of farcical ‘freedom’.

This ridiculous inefficiency is not just economically unproductive; it is environmentally wasteful in an era demanding industrial sustainability, privacy and ecological responsibility. Bitcoin has nothing of the sorts, while some other cryptocurrencies do, because they’ve learned, albeit not redeeming them for other flaws. Is there something as the perfect Cryptocurrency? May be, but it is not Bitcoin, whose only actual competitive advantage simply relies on having been the first of it’s kind, although it’s inept ilk would argue that it’s technically unique and flawless, which is a ludicrous argumentative falsity only fanatics possibly could ever accrue.

Despite the dismissive, boomer-like counterarguments, rare-metals-backed monetary systems theoretically offer a far superior alternative by grounding value in tangible, productive assets. They promote genuine economic growth, drive technological advancement, and foster systemic stability without resorting to arbitrary limitations or speculative constructs. Bitcoin’s contrived scarcity, far from being a visionary design, readily exposes itself as an inflexible gimmick in another peasant revolt, one which already has been co-opted by the elites.

Without significant structural changes—such as incentivizing circulation and addressing its fundamental liquidity traps and inconsistencies—Bitcoin will, despite its hype fueled by price schemes, basic buy pressure, and grand speculation, remain an ineffective and stagnant system. It fails to deliver as either a store of value or a truly viable medium of exchange, especially when compared to fiat systems, flawed as the are.

Bitcoin’s legacy will not be that of a financial revolution but a cautionary tale—a mirage of progress that masked its inadequacies with ideological fervor and speculative zeal. It has failed to deliver the monetary liberation it so boldly promised, offering instead an opaque system that deepens the much dreaded ‘inequalities’, destabilizes already precarious markets, and amplifies systemic inefficiencies. While fiat currencies are far from flawless in many ways—politically compromised and often wielded by destructive forces—they remain a more tangible and essential backbone of global economies, providing the liquidity, scalability, and useful redistributive mechanisms Bitcoin cannot replicate or even emulate.

In its zero-sum, Bitcoin’s triumph stands revealed,
Not as a cure, but a crack in wealth’s shield.
Exposing faults in FIAT’s fragile frame,
It fuels inequities anew, all the same.
Ohh thy crypto idol, aggrandized and bright,
Its promise falters in speculative flight!
Destabilized markets, wealth few dare share,
Its virtues mere whispers, lost in thin air…

No revolution—just a fleeting flame,
An artifact draped in a gilded name.
It sought to rise but could not transcend,
Bound by flaws it claimed to upend.
A brittle symbol of unchecked ambition,
Fettered by greed and flawed contrition.
A relic poised for history’s grim page,
The gaudy crest of our not-so-Gilded Age.