In the context of adoption, would you agree, or disagree if someone told you that, “We are still early”? Or you probably believe that Bitcoin, as a protocol, as a technological breakthrough, has climbed the highest peak it can reach?
Of course, adaptation is still at an early stage if you mean ordinary people who still haven't figured out (and some never will) what Bitcoin is. But you first compared some rich people from the past and Saylor who according to you could make trillions because he holds 100k+ Bitcoin, now you ask a completely different question...
The context is of everything. The fact that “it’s early” in adoption, early in “defining” what it truly is, early in “knowing” its true implications to nation-states, makes its current price/market value also in the early stages. Do you believe price will crash to $10,000 as adoption expands?
Why would it be stupid if it made sense from a game-theoretical standpoint?
I don't know what kind of games you mean, but for me, there is not much logic in your obsession with China, which according to you will have no choice "but to pass Bitcoin / allow mining too,", as if Bitcoin is something China depends on or will depend on in the future. From the perspective of mining profits, even if China has 100% control over Bitcoin mining, total mining profits + fees are trivial compared to what China makes from exporting its goods and services. China does not need Bitcoin, nor is it interested in anything other than making its bans work.
