My dear fellow, The truly comic part is not whether BTC is…

My dear fellow,
The truly comic part is not whether BTC is a Ponzi. It is.
The truly comic part is watching someone construct an entire argument upon a number he pulled from the financial equivalent of a séance.
> "Satoshi holds 1,096,361 bitcoins."
How delightful.
The anonymous creator has apparently remained hidden for nearly two decades, defeated intelligence agencies, journalists, academics, corporations, governments, and private investigators alike.
Yet somehow Barry from Crypto Twitter knows the exact contents of his wallet to the nearest coin.
One imagines him peering into the blockchain like an elderly fortune teller examining tea leaves.
"Yes... yes... the spirits reveal precisely 1,096,361..."
The extraordinary thing is that nobody pauses to ask the obvious question.
How do you know?
Not suspect.
Not estimate.
Know.
The answer, of course, is that he doesn't.
Nobody does.
The number exists because a collection of analysts made assumptions about early mining patterns, clustered addresses together, and then other people repeated the estimate so often that it became holy scripture.
A guess repeated a thousand times becomes "common knowledge."
A guess repeated ten thousand times becomes "fact."
A guess repeated a hundred thousand times becomes "everyone knows."
Twitter has elevated this process into a scientific method.
The post therefore boils down to:
"I know exactly how many coins an anonymous person controls despite not knowing who the anonymous person is."
At that point the discussion has already left economics and entered theology.
The rest is merely decoration.
The funniest thing about cryptocurrency culture is that people who claim to distrust authority will unquestioningly believe any number provided by another man with a profile picture and a blue tick.
The medieval church sold relics.
Crypto Twitter sells certainty.
The business model is remarkably similar.