A recent statement by StarkWare co-founder and Zcash creator Eli Ben-Sasson, claiming that Bitcoin's hard supply cap of 21 million coins is meaningless, sparked a strong reaction in the crypto community. In his view, on an infinite time horizon, all coins will inevitably be lost along with their wallet keys, calling into question the very concept of absolute scarcity.
The Essence of the Proposal: Not Volume, but Emission Rate
Instead of a fixed quantity, Ben-Sasson proposes setting a maximum emission rate. He considers a 4% annual threshold reasonable, arguing that such a growth rate is comparable to the dynamics of the human population. According to his logic, this ensures there will be "enough coins for everyone," even accounting for inevitable losses.
He emphasizes that his criticism is not of the idea of a limit itself, but of its form—an absolute number. Ben-Sasson also points to a "looming" security problem: as the block reward decreases, the network will have to rely solely on fees, creating vulnerabilities. To critics who remind him of the 2.1 quadrillion satoshis, he responds directly: "On an infinite horizon, every single one of these units will be lost."
When asked why specifically 4% and not 1-2%, he acknowledges that lower values are possible. The main point, he says, is the principle: to limit not the total volume, but the inflation rate. He also discusses alternatives, such as Shielded Labs' Network Sustainability Mechanism, calling it interesting, and describes the idea of demurrage (a fee on inactive coins) as a far more radical change.
Community Reaction: Bitcoin is Not Fiat
The idea was met with strong opposition. One user stated that a 4% annual emission turns Bitcoin into "fiat with extra steps." Ben-Sasson countered that the 21 million limit carries not only a purpose but also risks, and logical changes are not the end of Bitcoin, but a way to guarantee its future.
Another opponent called the limit "Bitcoin's social contract," changing which would essentially create a different asset. In response, the StarkWare co-founder suggested looking at it differently: one must understand the limit's purpose, its drawbacks, and whether they can be eliminated while preserving the original goal. In his opinion, this is possible.
A historical comparison was also made: "opening such a door" sets a precedent similar to how the Romans debased their coins. Ben-Sasson retorted that stagnation could also lead to collapse. The most emotional critics urged not to touch "the only sacred, scarce, and decentralized digital money" and to experiment with other cryptocurrencies. In response, Ben-Sasson asked whether scarcity could be preserved with a truly low supply increase.
To a remark that many of Bitcoin's narratives have already been lost, and this one is the last, he replied with a question: why is this specifically something that absolutely cannot be changed? The discussion showed that the topic of the BTC limit remains one of the most sensitive for members of the crypto community.
Cryptalist Analysis: Ben-Sasson's idea is undoubtedly provocative, but it raises a fundamental question: what is more important—the inviolability of a rule encoded in the code, or the long-term sustainability of the network? While the community fiercely defends the "sacred cow" of 21 million, the market fails to notice that the very concept of absolute scarcity may be an illusion in the face of inevitable losses. The question is not whether the limit needs to be changed, but what compromise between the deflationary nature and network security we are willing to accept.