Let's say I buy 1 Bitcoin for $2296.25 USD. I notice that the USD price value of the Bitcoin drops to $2093 USD, and let's say I want the US dollar amount, so I sell the Bitcoin at $2093 USD, whereby 1 BTC is selling for $2093 on the market.
Is that to say that the US dollar supply has deflated and that I am still, nonetheless, close to breaking even (assuming resistance along a network)?
That's the correct interpretation, right?
Because if Bitcoin works to significantly reduce the double-spending problem, then the (2296.25-2093=$103.25) $103.25 USD I "lost" was actually reallocated into society (1st law of thermodynamics). Thus, the ~$103.25 USD was used to benefit society (all of the Universe, socially) as a whole?
Or is that an incorrect interpretation because the "lost" money is allocated into society rather than my profits?
Or is it better to consider the drop in Bitcoin price was actually a reallocation of Bitcoin market cap. profits to society?
--> I guess that's like saying if the Bitcoin price drops, the market cap. was re-allocated into society, correlated with (if but causing) deflation of USD (if but all money), thus giving my $2093 the same (except a little resistance) buying power as the $2296.25 (used to buy the 1 Bitcoin) due to how Bitcoin reduces the double-spending problem: So, it's like I broke even because the amount of USD I obtained from selling the 1 Bitcoin is similar to the buying power of the amount of USD used to buy the 1 Bitcoin in the first place, right?
*sorry for edits
Trading is a zero-sum game, meaning that if someone gets profit, other must lose the same amount. In your scenario, someone who sells at lower price is effectively giving up the difference to some other person who sold you the asset at the higher price. Society is not involved here, as trading is a deal between individuals.