In the Bitcoin market, the debate regarding the future of the fixed supply structure of the network has gained momentum again. StarkWare CEO Eli Ben Sasson argued that the 21 million unit cap on Bitcoin may not be sustainable in the long term, proposing a permanent 4% annual issuance rate instead. This outburst has highlighted long-standing disagreements in the Bitcoin community about whether monetary policy should be changed.
Objection to supply limit
Ben Sasson states that the amount of accessible Bitcoin in circulation is constantly decreasing due to the loss of private keys over time. According to him, when this process extends over a very long period of time, more and more coins become permanently inaccessible and the available supply can approach zero.
Hardware wallet maker Ledger previously estimated that approximately 4 million Bitcoins may have been permanently lost. Ben Sasson also highlights this data as an element that supports his view that the current supply model may not produce sufficient liquidity in the future.
Ben Sasson argues that as private key losses continue, the accessible Bitcoin supply will erode in the long term, and therefore the network’s monetary policy should be rethought.
4% annual issuance proposal
Ben Sasson does not propose a borderless model that would completely eliminate scarcity. Instead, he thinks a hard upper framework can be maintained with a predictable and permanent 4% annual issuance rate. He argues that this approach would be more compatible with long-term global population growth and ensure that sufficient amounts of Bitcoin remain accessible to future users.
Mini dictionary: Satoshi is the smallest unit of Bitcoin. 1 Bitcoin is divided into 100 million satoshis; Therefore, the network can technically support very small amount transactions.
One of the objections to Ben Sasson was that Bitcoin is already highly divisible. In criticism, it was emphasized that the total supply could be divided into 2.1 quadrillion satoshi, and therefore there was no practical shortage of units for transactions. Ben Sasson opposed this argument, saying that satoshis tied to lost private keys also become permanently inaccessible.
Harsh reaction from Bitcoin advocates
A significant portion of Bitcoin supporters argue that the fixed supply of 21 million is one of the fundamental elements of the network’s identity. According to this segment, fixed money supply provides protection against inflation and currency depreciation. It is evaluated that if this structure is changed, Bitcoin’s “digital gold” narrative may be weakened.
Criticism was directed not only at changing monetary policy, but also at seeing lost Bitcoins as a problem. Opponents point out that permanently inaccessible coins make the remaining supply more scarce, which is a value booster for existing holders.
Bitcoin advocates emphasize that lost coins are not a threat to the system, but rather a factor that makes the remaining supply more scarce.
What’s at the heart of the famine debate
Strategy Chairman Michael Saylor has previously supported a similar understanding of scarcity. Saylor announced that he planned to destroy access to his Bitcoins after his death and said that this would increase the scarcity of the remaining supply. Strategy, formerly MicroStrategy, stands out as a US-based software and treasury management company known for holding large amounts of Bitcoin on its balance sheet.
At this point in the debate, Ben Sasson thinks that a predictable inflation rate can preserve Bitcoin’s long-term use, while most of the Bitcoin community remains of the view that the 21 million hard cap should not be changed.
