Thanks for posting. I know from similar attempts to enlighten on things like this, our efforts might seem unrewarded, other than to give us ourselves greater understanding.

As well as dredging through data, like you’ve done admirably here, I’ve found Metcalfe’s law also a useful tool to consider the reasons for the dominance of Bitcoin.

In case you haven’t come across it already; It tells us that the value of a network is equal to the square of the number of members, multiplied by a utility constant.

The value of Bitcoin seems to follow Metcalfe’s law, given now and then we need to make adjustments to the utility factor.

Changing the utility constant changes the rate of adoption.

Two networks with the same utility, like two cryptocurrencies with equal usability, will have the same adoption rate.

If one started before the other, then it will always have a substantial lead, as long as the utilities of each remain similar.

Things that change the utility are things like rising cost of use, or availability.

The latter seems key to answering some of the questions asked in your more recent articles on the phenomenon of freely printed money by banks etc.

In truth, Bitcoin was free, for a time.

Yes it took power to create, but that was a small price to pay in the days when folk could just set up a miner, sit back, and watch the coins rolling in.

Isn’t it interesting that the price soared most during that period, when Bitcoin was free?

I think if there is any lesson to be learned from Bitcoin, that one is most important.