Bitcoin's hard cap of 21 million coins is a cornerstone of its philosophy. However, not everyone in the crypto community considers this dogma unshakable. Eli Ben-Sasson, co-founder of StarkWare and one of the creators of Zcash, made a sensational statement: the fixed limit makes no sense, and it's time to reconsider it.
What is the essence of the new monetary policy?
Ben-Sasson proposes abandoning the absolute number of coins in favor of limiting the rate of issuance. In his view, a reasonable upper limit is 4% per year — a figure he links to the growth rate of the human population. The logic is simple: over an infinite time horizon, all coins will inevitably be lost due to key loss, and a fixed limit will no longer guarantee scarcity. Limiting the rate of issuance, rather than the total supply, supposedly ensures that there will be "enough coins for everyone."
The crypto analyst paid special attention to the issue of network security. After issuance ends, the block reward for miners will trend toward zero, and the network will rely solely on fees. This creates a "looming on the horizon" risk that could undermine Bitcoin's stability. Ben-Sasson emphasizes that his objection is not to the idea of a limit itself, but to its form — a rigid fixed number.
Community reaction: sacred cow or reasonable evolution?
The idea sparked a heated and highly polarized reaction. Many met the proposal with hostility. One user called 4% annual issuance a transformation of Bitcoin into "fiat with extra steps." Another opponent reminded that the 21 million cap is "Bitcoin's social contract," and changing it would create a completely different asset, much like the Romans reducing the weight of coins.
Ben-Sasson countered these arguments by urging a focus on the goal rather than the form. He posed a reasonable question: can scarcity be preserved with a truly low but constant increase in supply? In his opinion, stagnation and refusal to make any changes could also lead to collapse. The discussion showed that the topic of the BTC limit remains one of the most sensitive and fundamental for the crypto community.
Expert opinion: Ben-Sasson's idea is undoubtedly heretical for hardcore Bitcoin maximalists, but there is a grain of rationality in it. The "security budget" problem after halvings is real, and ignoring it means risking the network's future. However, any change to this "social contract" is not a technical but a political act that could split the community. For now, this is just a theoretical debate, but it sets the right direction for thinking about Bitcoin's long-term sustainability.