Its always interesting to listen to shitcoiner narratives, and how they justify holding on to a token, they often take bitcoin concepts and try to appropriate them as their own, one of those is the scarcity of a bitcoin.
Bitcoin only has 21 million coins, it's the ability to enforce network rules, its ability to force creation through proof of work, its the ability to limit centralisation of supply due to the cost acquisition of the coin creates a bustling ecosystem where the number go up can thrive.
Shitcoins don't have that, most if not all have premines and prefferential access, most of them require no energy to produce and when something takes no energy to produce, it can be created adnausiam.
We're burning tokens
One of the most popular fantasy land stories is the idea of burning supply, oh we're going to use fees to burn supply, oh you need to burn supply to access this feature. Oh if you pull out of this ponzi early we're going to slash your rewards and burn the supply.
The theory goes as supply is burned, there will be less coins and from the buy wall you have today, it should re-adjust upward.
What they don't tell you is that the burning is such a marginal part of it, the inflation created makes it negligible. This is the reality in most cases.
In the case of a mass burn or where a coin can achieve some sort of scale in their burning that outpaces inflation creation of new coins. The fact that the float on the market doesn't change much and the buy order demand doesn't increase means even if you cut your token supply by 99% it wouldn't make a lick of a difference.
Removing supply means nothing
If the supply of coins actually meant something, then forks of bitcoin would all be outcompeting most shitcoins because they also have 21 million coins. Bitcoin cash, and Bitcoin Satoshi's vision are absolute jokes, their supply and issuance don't matter.
What matters is people wanting to acquire it due to the incentives of the network, that is the primary driver, the more people want something, and the fewer willing to part with the benefits of owning something, the more it has to get bid up to acquire.
This is what shitcoins don't tell you, they rely on your ignorance of economics to fool you into holding their coin so you provide exit liquidity.
Creating less sellers because you can't create more buyers
The truth is shitcoin founders and bag holders, or rather the ones that do have any honesty and understanding of their system realise that they cannot attract buyers of their coin at any real scale. So instead of going out to try and compete with bitcoin for buyers, they lure those in and encourage them to hodl, to stake, to lock up their coins, and earn fees on paper.
All the while selling their coin to you and dripping out of their own positions and leaving you in a coin that has no real liquidty to realise any gains you might achieve on paper.
I've come to realise that shitcoins are like financial fairy tales for adults, and sure they sound great, but in reality, it's only a story.
Eventually you all have to grow up.
Have your say
What do you good people of HIVE think?
So have at it my Jessies! If you don't have something to comment, "I am a Jessie."
Let's connect
If you liked this post, sprinkle it with an upvote or esteem and if you don't already, consider following me 
| Earn Free bitcoin & shop | Earn Free Bitcoin & shop | Claim Free Bitcoin & Shop |
|---|---|---|