Bitcoin’s 21M Cap Under Fire as Peter Todd Makes the Case for a Gold-Like Supply
Bitcoin’s 21M Cap Under Fire as Peter Todd Makes the Case for a Gold-Like Supply
Why Compare Bitcoin With Gold?
The gold comparison cuts into one of Bitcoin's oldest selling points.
Gold is scarce, but it does not have a fixed numerical supply cap. Miners continue adding new gold every year. World Gold Council data shows nearly 220,000 tonnes of above-ground gold existed at the end of 2025, while mines added another 3,672 tonnes during that year.
Todd's argument is that Bitcoin could operate similarly: maintain scarcity while allowing a small flow of new supply to fund the network securing it.
For Bitcoin holders, however, abandoning 21 million would remove a feature that gold itself cannot offer: a predetermined maximum supply.
Bitcoin.org states that issuance is designed to halt at 21 million, after which miners are expected to depend on transaction fees.
Could Bitcoin Actually Abandon the 21M Cap?
Todd has already acknowledged the biggest obstacle.
Adding tail emissions would require a hard fork, meaning existing nodes would reject blocks created under the new monetary rules unless their operators chose to upgrade. Todd wrote that convincing enough of the Bitcoin community to accept such a change could be extremely difficult.
Metaplanet CEO Simon Gerovich argued that Bitcoin's fixed supply becomes more valuable as the global money supply continues to expand.
Gerovich pointed to global M2 reaching a new all-time high of roughly $121 trillion, even as Bitcoin's price has decoupled from global liquidity trends over the past year. For him, the short-term divergence does not weaken Bitcoin's monetary case because its underlying supply schedule remains unchanged.
His argument centers on Bitcoin's scarcity rather than its immediate price response to liquidity. Governments and central banks can increase the supply of fiat currency, while Bitcoin's issuance continues to decline under its programmed halving schedule and ultimately approaches its 21 million cap.
The comments also offer a counterpoint to Peter Todd's tail-emission idea, which would allow a small amount of new Bitcoin to continue being issued beyond the existing supply schedule. Gerovich's argument instead rests on preserving absolute scarcity as one of Bitcoin's defining monetary properties.
There is also little urgency in practical terms. Bitcoin's subsidy declines gradually, with the final issuance expected only around 2140.
For now, the debate is less about an imminent Bitcoin fork and more about a question the network will eventually have to answer: is absolute scarcity more valuable than guaranteeing miners a permanent source of new BTC?
This article has been published in ccn.com via Yahoo News.
Bitcoin’s 21M Cap Under Fire as Peter Todd Makes the Case for a Gold-Like Supply
Bitcoin developer Peter Todd has revived his argument for tail emissions, which would keep issuing a small amount of BTC after the current block subsidy ...
finance.yahoo.com
