A real storm has erupted in the crypto community after one of the co-founders of StarkWare and Zcash, Eli Ben-Sasson, put forward a radical idea: to reconsider the fundamental principle of Bitcoin — the hard cap of 21 million coins. In his opinion, this limit makes no sense in the long term, as wallet keys are inevitably lost, and on an infinite horizon, all coins will be gone.
Ben-Sasson proposes replacing the fixed quantity with a fixed annual issuance rate of 4%. He argues that this approach guarantees there will be "enough coins for everyone," drawing a parallel with the growth rate of the human population. Instead of limiting the total supply, according to his logic, it is more reasonable to limit the inflation rate.
The Essence of the Proposal and Its Logic
Ben-Sasson emphasizes that his objection is not to the idea of a limit itself, but to its format. He sees a problem in the "security budget": as the block reward for miners trends toward zero, the network would have to exist solely on fees, creating serious security risks.
Responding to criticism that Bitcoin is divisible into 2.1 quadrillion satoshis and that is enough for everyone, Ben-Sasson counters: "On an infinite horizon, each of these units will be lost." He acknowledges that the 4% rate is not a dogma — lower values are possible — but the key is the principle itself: to limit not the volume, but the rate of issuance.
During the discussion, alternative mechanisms were also mentioned, such as the Network Sustainability Mechanism from Shielded Labs, which Ben-Sasson called "extremely interesting," as well as the idea of demurrage (a fee on inactive coins), which he considered a more radical change.
Community Reaction: Division and Emotions
The crypto community met the idea with hostility. Many users stated that a 4% annual issuance turns Bitcoin into "fiat with extra steps." Others called the 21 million cap "Bitcoin's social contract," the violation of which would create a completely different asset.
Historical analogies were also voiced: changing the limit was compared to how the Romans reduced the weight of coins, which ultimately led to collapse. Ben-Sasson countered that stagnation and a lack of evolution could also lead to collapse. The most emotional critics urged not to touch "the only sacred, scarce, and decentralized digital money," suggesting experimenting with other cryptocurrencies instead.
Ben-Sasson, in turn, posed a counter-question: can scarcity be preserved with a truly low increase in supply? The discussion showed that the topic of the BTC cap remains one of the most sensitive and fundamental for the entire crypto community.
Analyst's Comment: This proposal, although it may seem heretical to orthodox Bitcoin maximalists, raises an extremely important question about the long-term sustainability of the network. Ignoring the problem of the "security budget" and the inevitable loss of coins means risking Bitcoin's future. However, any change to the "social contract" is playing with fire, which could undermine trust in an asset based on predictability and the immutability of rules. The market will likely react to such discussions with increased volatility, as the fundamental narrative of "digital gold" is called into question.