StarkWare co-founder and CEO Eli Ben-Sasson has once again stirred up the crypto community by proposing a radical change to Bitcoin's fundamental principle. In his view, the fixed supply limit of 21 million coins lacks practical sense in the long term. His main argument is the inevitable loss of private keys, which over time takes more and more bitcoins out of circulation.
Ben-Sasson argues that if we consider an infinitely long time horizon, sooner or later all keys will be lost. To support this, he cites a Ledger estimate that the volume of irretrievably lost bitcoins has already reached 4 million coins. Instead of an absolute limit, he proposes introducing a predetermined annual emission rate of 4% per year. This figure, he says, roughly corresponds to the Earth's population growth rate and should ensure the asset's constant scarcity.
Community Reaction: A Battle of Ideologies
Ben-Sasson's idea sparked heated debates. Critics, including well-known community user Čudan Svat, called the proposal "the worst in history." They emphasize that the 21 million BTC supply cap is not just a technical detail but a cornerstone of the "digital gold" concept that distinguishes Bitcoin from fiat currencies. In their view, any change to this principle would destroy trust and turn the asset into just another "dollar."
Another user, Angel Akiyta, expressed concern that adopting such a change would open the door for subsequent protocol modifications, undermining the very idea of decentralization and immutability for which Bitcoin was created. Some discussion participants also pointed out that the argument about "not enough coins for everyone" is untenable, given that each bitcoin is divisible into 100 million satoshis. However, Ben-Sasson countered that key loss would also reduce this practical number of units.
Compromise from Zcash: Network Sustainability Mechanism
In search of an alternative, Zcash founder Bryce "Zooko" Wilcox proposed considering the Network Sustainability Mechanism (NSM) concept. This mechanism, unlike Ben-Sasson's ideas, preserves the hard limit of 21 million coins (in Zcash's case, ZEC). The essence of NSM is that users can voluntarily burn their coins, and an equivalent amount is then gradually returned to circulation through miner rewards over four years. This approach helps maintain network security and incentivize mining without increasing the maximum supply.
Interestingly, in June, Strategy founder Michael Saylor presented his five-tier model of the Bitcoin economy, in which he categorically opposed any changes at the protocol level. This underscores the depth of the divide in the community on this issue.
My expert opinion: Ben-Sasson's proposal, while provocative, highlights a real problem — the long-term sustainability of Bitcoin's network security. However, mechanically introducing a fixed 4% inflation is a path toward turning Bitcoin into something between gold and fiat, which would destroy its unique value. Compromise solutions like NSM seem more promising, as they address the issue of incentivizing miners without encroaching on the sacred 21 million limit. At the heart of this debate lies a fundamental question: will Bitcoin remain "digital gold" or evolve into a "digital economy" with managed issuance?