>"In monetary economics, the predictability of a currency's supply does not inherently ensure its efficacy as a store of value." I didn't claim this. My point was a similar one. Just like predictability, less supply or capped supply does not necessarily = scarcer. You're completely ignoring the other side of scarcity which is demand. If there is a supply of one, yet no one demands it, there is no scarcity. Similarly if a good has a smaller capped supply that is less demanded, and another good has a larger continuous supply with much more demand, the latter can be more scarce at any point in time than the former. >"This makes it a superior alternative to gold, which is prone to capture and supply shocks, fiat, which suffers from centralized overissuance or any ever increasing commodity, even if the increase is predictable." Those are disadvantages yes, but you're ignoring other advantages gold has over Bitcoin (fungibility, privacy, network effect, wider acceptance, independent of digital infrastructure, longer proven history as SoV, physical, doesn't cease to exist without miners, etc). What properties people value more than the other is subjective. >"...even gold, which can see supply shocks from new mining tech or discoveries" Threats from new technology apply to Bitcoin as well if not more so. Easy example is the threat of quantum computing potentially breaking it along with what that would do to confidence in it as a SoV >"Bitcoin’s hard cap is coded into its protocol, making its scarcity absolute and predictable." Capped supply, predictability, or code alone can't enforce SoV - a network of people must be in consensus with it. If that network dilutes with growing "normies" that become the majority, and government entices them with carrots and sticks down the road to move their money to a fork, with a supply controlled by the state, the smaller "original" network might still exist, but there goes the SoV narrative.