We can't compare the both together cos some thought it wise as of then to invest hugely in bitcoin and it paid them off hugely as of then. And today they are mega rich, investing in other firms.
I know of a guy who's a multi millionaire now, whose only work is trade on bitcoin.
Topic: Fiat money's richest vs Bitcoin's richest (Read 361 times)
There are a lot of ways to make more earnings, and today we have the fiat currency, and also in cryptocurrency still it depends on the person how they can handle the situation of every profit. We cannot evaluate the person by his earnings at the time because most of them know the possible and their capability to make more earnings on that they handled the situation. In my perspective to fiat currency is one of the most profitable ways of earnings, but in the transaction, most of the time, I use the bitcoin because it is less transaction fee and also has secured deals.
The top 1% richest Bitcoin addresses account for 87.92% of all circulating Bitcoins.
Again, on the other end of the spectrum, the poorest 48.06% of addresses hold 0.02% of all circulating Bitcoins.
Bitcoin is about decentralization hah. Whales can control everything here Again, on the other end of the spectrum, the poorest 48.06% of addresses hold 0.02% of all circulating Bitcoins.
Apparently in both the case rich becomes more richer and poor still struggles and makes money for the rich.
Whatever you do in your lifetime untill you have done something significantly different you cannot become rich in this society. The only thing which we can do is to try to become rich.
Whatever you do in your lifetime untill you have done something significantly different you cannot become rich in this society. The only thing which we can do is to try to become rich.
It's quite possible and obvious that we can tell who the world richest (fiat) people are. However, I think it's not possible to tell when it comes to bitcoin. This is because as you said, most of the top wallets are that of exchanges, hence, it is practically impossible to tell, considering the fact that they are bitcoin addresses without any information on who owns it.
I think this is why PoS is a lot better in some ways. PoW is outdated and too centralised. This still only solves the problem of whale miners, though
AtomicLemon_, PoS does not help wealth questions. Also PoW is as strong as usual.
I don't see the need for any comparison, the same rich men we have out there are still the same rich men we have here.
As a poor or average, dude when you invest in bitcoin you don't become rich overnight. I'm an average dude and bitcoin didn't turn the little money I invested into a million dollars overnight, but I'm happy that it helped to change my story and put me in a better position than I used to be. Now that's my luck, and not magic or whatever you might have had in mind.
There are other people who have invested but lost their money. I was a lucky to have invested before the 2017 bull run that made the price to skyrocket to a high price.
As a poor or average, dude when you invest in bitcoin you don't become rich overnight. I'm an average dude and bitcoin didn't turn the little money I invested into a million dollars overnight, but I'm happy that it helped to change my story and put me in a better position than I used to be. Now that's my luck, and not magic or whatever you might have had in mind.
There are other people who have invested but lost their money. I was a lucky to have invested before the 2017 bull run that made the price to skyrocket to a high price.
Are you forgetting that lots of people don't make use of one address, and I'm one of those people that don't make use of one address. My coins are always stored with different addresses. And I don't really see any difference between the percentage of the rich in bitcoin and the percentage of the poor.
I think it's the same thing; it's still the same rich guys that bought huge amount of bitcoins and stored in their addresses. And to be sincere I don't think there are much poor people that are in bitcoin, it's mainly the rich and the average people, people don't have money for investment. I have seen few of them here I live and when I talk about Bitcoin they complain that it is too much for them to invest in it. Though if any one of those luckily discovered bitcoin back in 2008 - 2009 and invested in it then with the little money they had, in 2017 they would have gotten over 19,000 USD, but who can have patience for that long?
I think it's the same thing; it's still the same rich guys that bought huge amount of bitcoins and stored in their addresses. And to be sincere I don't think there are much poor people that are in bitcoin, it's mainly the rich and the average people, people don't have money for investment. I have seen few of them here I live and when I talk about Bitcoin they complain that it is too much for them to invest in it. Though if any one of those luckily discovered bitcoin back in 2008 - 2009 and invested in it then with the little money they had, in 2017 they would have gotten over 19,000 USD, but who can have patience for that long?
One of the major question we face in this digital age is how longer we will continue to rely upon fiat currency.
However if we compare fiat vs BTCs richest I will go with BTC because it's a precious gem where you cannot able to elaborate how profittable it is. Also there are big whales who are holding thousands of BTCs and waiting patiently. They are not expecting any popularity like Jeff Bezos
One day fiat currency will be over ruled by BTC because of its dominance is more faster...
However if we compare fiat vs BTCs richest I will go with BTC because it's a precious gem where you cannot able to elaborate how profittable it is. Also there are big whales who are holding thousands of BTCs and waiting patiently. They are not expecting any popularity like Jeff Bezos
One day fiat currency will be over ruled by BTC because of its dominance is more faster...
Cryptocurrencies are already overruled by BTC. They've always been and they always will be. If we ever stop relying on fiat, we will turn to the digital fiat which is an even shittier idea.
Our society hasn't been educated about this. In fact, we've been taught that accumulating fiat is what we need to evolve in life. We've been taught that we need to buy clothes in order to look good and stay up to date with the trends. We've been all taught the wrong stuff and only now will people start learning what they should've invested into and what they should've done their entire life.
One of the major question we face in this digital age is how longer we will continue to rely upon fiat currency.
However if we compare fiat vs BTCs richest I will go with BTC because it's a precious gem where you cannot able to elaborate how profittable it is. Also there are big whales who are holding thousands of BTCs and waiting patiently. They are not expecting any popularity like Jeff Bezos
One day fiat currency will be over ruled by BTC because of its dominance is more faster...
However if we compare fiat vs BTCs richest I will go with BTC because it's a precious gem where you cannot able to elaborate how profittable it is. Also there are big whales who are holding thousands of BTCs and waiting patiently. They are not expecting any popularity like Jeff Bezos
One day fiat currency will be over ruled by BTC because of its dominance is more faster...
When people earn money, they get the feeling of power. Having this feeling of power feels great, so there's always going to be this competition for power ownership and control because it apparently brings joy.
Wealth inequality will never cease to exist. It can only be changed in different ways, but you can't make it disappear unfortunately. Be it crypto, fiat or gold, there is always going to be someone willing to chase power and wealth.
Wealth inequality will never cease to exist. It can only be changed in different ways, but you can't make it disappear unfortunately. Be it crypto, fiat or gold, there is always going to be someone willing to chase power and wealth.
I agree with those who question this comparison. Indeed, if we're talking about wealth distribution in the world economy, the data is more or less expected to be accurate. Here I think it's worth noting that while the topic tries to name it 'fiat's money richest', the article on the Guardian seems to mean the dollar evaluation of all assets one has (including accommodation, stock shares and probably BTC in cases when ownership of big sums in BTC is publicly known). At the same time, the data on BitInfoCharts tells us only about addresses. One address can belong to a big company, and one person can have multiple addresses, so the '1 address = 1 person' approach might be very far from reality.
When you compare between the fiat money's richest versus bitcoin's richest, I guess the bitcoin's richest will be the winner because he has 87.92% of all circulating Bitcoins. If he sells all of his bitcoin at a price now, he will be the new richest person in fiat money, and he can beat all of the other richest people. But I never think of that because that is not my business. What I want to have now is to have and make more and more bitcoin while the bitcoin price does not increase so high. We are lucky now because we could still buy bitcoin below $10,000. Imagine if bitcoin is at more than $20,000, and we are too late to make money from now on, we will not have a chance to buy bitcoin at a low price.
What do you guys think of this? I'd say that lots of the richest addresses don't count as much because some of them are exchanges cold wallets holding some people's funds.
Even then, I wouldn't be surprised if the wealth disparity in Bitcoin is a lot more lopsided than traditional assets. The early adoption advantage is ridiculous, considering how much Bitcoin has grown and that it was only born about a decade ago.
That being said, the comparison is quite moot. Bitcoin is only more lopsided because of the tremendous early adoption advantage and the fact that the rich (regardless of currency) are the same people who have the most capability to create more wealth -- Bitcoin was never really meant to redistribute wealth after all. You can create wealth with it, but if that's your purpose then it's basically just another asset with a few niches.
As for what I think, I think it can be problematic that a couple of whales can exercise a great deal of control over the market, but at the same time, nothing can really be done within the confines of a free market philosophy.
1% is huge enough because the number of people are in billions who are using fiat, while in bitcoin, the adoption is still low.
That's why if you want to belong on the 1% in the future, you should start investing in bitcoin and owning at least 1 btc is huge enough in the future that you can already retire and live a life without financial problem.
That's why if you want to belong on the 1% in the future, you should start investing in bitcoin and owning at least 1 btc is huge enough in the future that you can already retire and live a life without financial problem.
Very eloquent information that people who don’t really like about the maximum decentralization of cryptocurrencies do not really like it. But a rather important question arises, and how many of these richest addresses are correct? How many owners have lost them?
this is a very wrong comparison to make.
the first group (world's richest) is taking into consideration all the assets of that person and the final result is the total sum of them which could also contain bitcoin and most probably does.
the second group (bitcoin richlist) is not individuals and it is not the total networth (sum of all assets!) so you are basically comparing apples and oranges.
additionally the bitcoin richlist's top ranks is mainly services that are holding other people's bitcoins. so if you wanted to compare the two lists you must include banks in the first list since banks are essentially what the top richlist (like exchanges) are.
the first group (world's richest) is taking into consideration all the assets of that person and the final result is the total sum of them which could also contain bitcoin and most probably does.
the second group (bitcoin richlist) is not individuals and it is not the total networth (sum of all assets!) so you are basically comparing apples and oranges.
additionally the bitcoin richlist's top ranks is mainly services that are holding other people's bitcoins. so if you wanted to compare the two lists you must include banks in the first list since banks are essentially what the top richlist (like exchanges) are.
in this issue, we don't know who the winner is. because the richest person who holds fiat doesn't necessarily hold bitcoin. they could be one of the biggest holders of bitcoin, making them rich in two places. however, it is very difficult to know this if we do not know who the holder of bitcoin is.
You cannot get justice a distribution of a currency that is still being tested and heard only about 10% of the world's population at best.
Also, poor people cannot invest because most of them do not have much money that enables them to invest in high-risk assets that requires some technical knowledge when most of them do not have access to the Internet.
Note that there is an estimated number of people who do not have bank accounts and therefore it will be difficult for them to buy BTC.
In short: the comparison is not logical or will give unrealistic results due to the different variables.
Also, poor people cannot invest because most of them do not have much money that enables them to invest in high-risk assets that requires some technical knowledge when most of them do not have access to the Internet.
Note that there is an estimated number of people who do not have bank accounts and therefore it will be difficult for them to buy BTC.
In short: the comparison is not logical or will give unrealistic results due to the different variables.
Most often, there are no separate fiat and bitcoin rich people, they own several currencies at the same time.
Jump to: