Related to what I wrote:

Wow 😮

Never understood how people doubt the gas chambers' genuineness based on _the material of the doors_. Why _not_ wooden doors? Why should a more robust or gas tight door have been needed? If the material of the door is your "evidence" for the gas chambers being "fake", then you ought to talk to a firefighter and let them tell you how even a pretty badly or even not at all sealed room with some poisonous gas source will easily have everyone in it poisoned.

Call me naive, but somehow I don't think we'll ever run out of work .. but that's another topic. Maybe a bit like Jevon's paradox but for work instead of energy .. we'll use what we have, even when we discover powerful new tools that'd allow us to let capacity sit idle with same output.

The market can absolutely stay irrational longer than an _individual_ can stay solvent .. the market cannot stay irrational longer than _people_ can stay solvent .. If the economic incentives to buy/use BTC continue to exist (which they do unless the CBs return to gold standard), people will continue to buy.

But "just buy it all up" doesn't actually work, even though it sounds somewhat simple. Because it implies, that everyone (people) who currently is also buying BTC would need to stop. But why would they stop if their goal is to "buy it to save for retirement in 30 years"? Or why would people who speculate on rising price in 10 years stop buying now, unless they see the price rise to say $ 100.000.000 and think "oh, now's actually a good time to sell, I've reached my goals"? In which case buying all BTC has become too expensive even for the FED.

Also, aren't we early? As in: most regular human BTC holders are not 70/80/90 years old .. .. but in 30 years many will be. I'd assume that if someone's using BTC as savings account and even if they're using it for speculation/leaving legacy, they at some age will spend some of it to "get" something out of it before they go to the grave.

Sure, your assumption that velocity will be low seems reasonable. But I doubt that whales will just hold onto their BTC through all time. I instead assume that at different increasing valuations, most large holders will eventually become sellers of at least a part of their stash. Because the value is at some point so high (measured in touchable goods), that possession of some of the touchable goods is more valuable than keeping _all_ BTC. And because Bitcoin (thankfully) doesn't earn interest, anyone that wants to benefit from the increased value by having some touchable goods _must_ spend. Sure, we can assume, most whales/rich folks usually have other sources of capital/income to spend on buying stuff, but if they never sell BTC, they never actually benefit from its increased value, right? And as to the scheme of dumping and crashing the price and buying back at a lower price, is there evidence of that actually working? I mean, as long as there are many stubborn DCA'ers out there who just don't stop buying, they should set a pretty solid price floor and they also stack more when the price drops and they DCA for constant amount of fiat/time.