So, as @Big Bad John said: 'In Bitcoin, consensus is not built, it is enforced.' I think we’re on the same page here, though not everyone might see it this way. If some believe consensus can be built, then it's up to the community to actively enforce it. But that only works if enough people are willing to stand firm. The 21 million limit would be incredibly difficult to break; it's likely an extreme example. People could try, but they'd probably fail. However, if someone controls the longest chain, they do hold significant power. Now, consider another scenario: What if there’s a divisive issue that splits the community? For example, say there's a proposal to activate an OP_CON opcode. The specifics aren’t the point; it’s that the community is divided. You could potentially engineer this or introduce enough ideas to create a split. At that point, there’s a real risk of a chain split. You’d end up with 21 million on one chain and 21 million on another, and there’d be confusion, at least temporarily, about which is the 'real' Bitcoin. We need to be vigilant about this because it’s a legitimate possibility, as history has shown. So, to say that Bitcoin’s scarcity is 'perfect' might be a bit too strong. It’s something we have to continuously protect. Hope that makes sense!