StarkWare co-founder and Zcash creator Eli Ben-Sasson has once again stirred the crypto community by questioning the inviolability of Bitcoin's core dogma — the hard cap of 21 million coins. His argument, while heretical to many maximalists, is based on stark mathematics and long-term risks to the network.
Ben-Sasson is not proposing to eliminate scarcity as such. He is attacking the very form of its fixation — an absolute number. According to his logic, on an infinite time horizon, the loss of wallet keys will inevitably lead to all coins being irretrievably lost. Instead of a hard cap, he proposes fixing a maximum issuance rate, calling a reasonable benchmark 4% per year — a pace comparable to human population growth. This, in his view, ensures that there will be "enough coins for everyone" in perpetuity.
The Essence of the Proposal and Its Logic
Ben-Sasson's key thesis is not about abandoning monetary policy, but about changing its paradigm. He points to the "security over time" problem: as the block reward approaches zero, the network will have to rely solely on fees. This, he argues, creates a fragile structure. To objections that Bitcoin is divisible into 2.1 quadrillion satoshis and that this is enough for everyone, he responds directly: "On an infinite horizon, every one of these units will be lost."
When asked why he chose 4% specifically, rather than 1-2%, he acknowledged that lower values are possible. The main point is the principle itself: to limit not the total supply, but the inflation rate. Discussing alternative mechanisms, such as Shielded Labs' Network Sustainability Mechanism, he called them "extremely interesting" but noted the difficulty of quantifying coin "burning." He considered the option of demurrage (a fee on inactive coins) to be a much more radical change.
The Community's Reaction Was Harsh
The idea was met with fierce resistance. Critics called 4% annual issuance a transformation of Bitcoin into "fiat with extra steps." Ben-Sasson countered: the 21 million cap has a purpose but also carries risks, and logical changes are not the end of Bitcoin but a way to guarantee its future.
A particularly sharp historical comparison was made: opening such a "door" creates a precedent similar to the Romans debasing their coinage. The StarkWare co-founder retorted that stagnation could also lead to collapse. The most emotional critics urged him not to touch "the only sacred, scarce, and decentralized digital money" and to experiment with other cryptocurrencies. In response, Ben-Sasson posed a key 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 for the community. Many of Bitcoin's narratives have already been lost, and this one is the last bastion.
Expert Opinion: Ben-Sasson's proposal is an intellectual exercise of the highest order, but from a practical standpoint, it is stillborn. Changing Bitcoin's code in this way would mean creating a hard fork that would not gain support from miners or the community. However, the very fact of such a discussion raises an important question: what will happen to the network in 100 years, when issuance ends? Relying solely on fees is a bet that Bitcoin will become a global settlement network with a massive volume of transactions. If that doesn't happen, the "security budget" problem will become existential.