1. A win win trade; one that the both parties win, hence the number of people into such trade keeps booming
2. Trade in which a party gains, but no one loses, and again welfare will definitely go up; more users and investors
3. Trade in which no one gains, but someone loses
4. Trade in which some party win and some loses, and increases the amount of profits of those who won.
People are wise, they'll go for one and two, but will trade on it until a point where people can't trade without getting worsen off. But, in 3 and 4, where I placed bitcoin, especially 4. The trade cannot be profitable if people don't lose for others to win. Yet it has some qualities of the results of number 1, finite supply. When the supply of bitcoin ends. Wouldn't people look for other things that'll serve them, other than bitcoin?
People's interest can change in the market. Which is what balances the market. Difference in utilities.
No fud! just reasoning like an economists. Using their mathematical science. You can contribute or share you insights on Pareto principles; Pareto optimal and Pareto superior trades.
Thanks.
You are correct that individual and group likes and dislikes can vary, affecting the market. For instance, if a big number of individuals lose passion for bitcoin and instead invest in other assets, the price of bitcoin may fall. On the other hand, if more individuals become enthusiastic about bitcoin and begin to use it for operations, its value may climb. So it's critical to examine how the market could develop in the future as people's choices shift. So, while Bitcoin's supply is restricted, other variables may impact its worth as time passes.