Let me rephrase the picture...
Black hole:"A black hole is a region of
spacetime where gravity is so strong that nothing—no particles or even electromagnetic radiation such as light—can escape from it.
The theory of
general relativity predicts that a sufficiently compact mass can deform
spacetime to form a black hole."
Bitcoin:"A Bitcoin is a
cryptocurrency of the world where gravity is so strong that nothing—paper money or even
governments such as
Central Banks—can escape from it.
The theory of cryptocurrency predicts that a sufficiently compact mass (
21million coins) can decentralize governments to form a new world."
I appreciate your explanation of the picture because it does seem to help me, but I am having some difficulties understanding why you are using the term cryptocurrency when you refer to bitcoin, and sure, "technically" bitcoin likely fits into a subcategory, but seems to me that part of the problem is that we have no other example in such category besides bitcoin that meets the value sucking definition that you seem to be applying to bitcoin but you feel some kind of inclination to broaden the concept beyond bitcoin by using the term "cryptocurrency"
Furthermore, many of us appreciate that the term cryptocurrency is abused and confusing in mainstream parlance - so I really have difficulties understanding why anyone (whether academic or not) really feels a need to use the term "cryptocurrency" when referring to bitcoin value sucking dynamics... ..even though in theory there could end up being some other system or coin that might end up developing some of the same or similar value sucking characteristics that are currently ONLY realistically measurable in bitcoin.