I hope you can appreciate how impossible it will be for me to teach every member here basic economics? I don't have enough time. Eventually I must quit and go back to real work.
The number of possible misunderstandings and conflations is unlimited.
The philosophical paradigm of Bitcoin, is that the early adopters from first 4 years will have 50% of the money supply. That is insane and will never be allowed in a meritocracy. The free market will never allow this. Yes people should profit on their innovations, but they should not have 50% of all future production. Society will go to world war if necessary to remove those chains.
The early adopters have 50% of the money supply ... until they spend it. You seem to completely miss how bitcoin is actually a currency, it is transferred around to help generate wealth. Say there is Joe, who has some bitcoins he mined a long time ago. Joe pays some bitcoins to Bob to do some work and create some value, Bob would otherwise just be sitting on his couch watching TV. Joe the early adopter has now cashed out his bitcoins, but because of bitcoins the total value of the system was able to increase.
I did not miss that, my entire thesis is that spending is what is lacking in Bitcoin. There is too much store-of-value and not enough velocity.
But then you try to erroneously attach that truth to giving 50% of a money supply to a few people.
I would have no problem with them having 100% of the current money supply, if I know that the debasement is sufficiently fast, that they are not incentivized to sit on that capital and bury it in a hole.
Please people, stop conflating truths with non-truths.