Amir Thapa chhetri

A viral post from X analyst NoLimit is the one most crypto traders and investors should pay attention to. And, it’s not about price targets, halvings, or whether Bitcoin hits $200K next cycle.
Instead, it’s about something far more uncomfortable: the idea that Bitcoin’s scarcity narrative is being quietly undermined by Wall Street.
The tweet, which has now passed 1.3 million views, argues that Bitcoin’s biggest threat is the financial system wrapping Bitcoin into layers of paper claims, derivatives, and synthetic exposure until “21 million” stops mattering in practice.
And honestly? The concern deserves attention.
The Core Claim: Bitcoin Is Being “Fractionalized”
NoLimit’s main point is simple but provocative: Bitcoin may have a hard cap on-chain, but off-chain markets are creating something that looks a lot like an elastic supply.
In the old days, owning Bitcoin meant holding keys. One coin was one coin.
Today, Bitcoin exists inside a much larger financial machine (ETFs, futures, lending desks, perpetual swaps, structured products, wrapped tokens) all of which allow multiple entities to gain exposure to the same underlying BTC without ever touching the actual asset.
NoLimit describes this as a “paper Bitcoin multiplier,” where one real coin can support several layers of claims.
That framing is aggressive, but it’s not totally wrong.
How Wall Street Changes the Game
Bitcoin maxis love to talk about supply and demand as if the market is still purely spot-driven.
But since the rise of institutional products, Bitcoin has started behaving more like a macro financial instrument than a grassroots bearer asset.
When ETFs custody massive amounts of BTC, market makers hedge using futures. Traders pile into leveraged perps. Banks package structured notes. DeFi protocols tokenize wrapped versions. The same underlying Bitcoin becomes the base for multiple exposures.
This doesn’t change Bitcoin’s protocol rules, but it does change market mechanics.
Bitcoin has a huge problem that nobody talks about.Is everyone ignoring it on purpose? Possibly.But bitcoin’s fundamental thesis has changed drastically.The hard truth? 21 million is no longer the maximum supply.I’ve been in this game since the Mt. Gox days.We used to…
— NoLimit (@NoLimitGains) February 6, 2026
And in the short term, mechanics matter more than ideology.
Does This “Destroy Scarcity”?
Here’s where my take diverges slightly from NoLimit’s tone.
Bitcoin’s 21 million cap is still real. The blockchain doesn’t care about derivatives.
But what does happen is that scarcity becomes less immediate in price discovery when the majority of trading volume happens through cash-settled instruments rather than spot buying.
Derivatives can amplify rallies, but they can also cap them through hedging and liquidation cascades. The market becomes more reflexive, more engineered, and less purely driven by organic demand.
This is exactly what happened with gold after it became financialized in the late 20th century: massive paper markets formed on top of a scarce underlying asset.
Gold became harder for scarcity alone to dictate price in the short run.
Bitcoin could be heading down a similar path.
Read also: What Is Really Driving Gold Price Higher Again? Expert Breaks It Down
The Self-Custody Argument
NoLimit ends with the only “solution” he sees: take coins off exchanges and into self-custody.
That’s classic Bitcoiner logic, and it’s valid in principle.
The more BTC sits in custodial systems (whether exchanges or ETF vaults) the more it becomes part of a tradfi balance-sheet ecosystem rather than a censorship-resistant asset held by individuals.
Self-custody doesn’t eliminate derivatives, but it does reduce rehypothecation risk and limits how much Bitcoin can be used as collateral inside opaque financial plumbing.
Read also: XRP Panic Sell-Off Backfires: Whales Bought the Dip in Record Size
The Bigger Picture: Financialization Was Always Coming
The truth is, this isn’t some conspiracy where Wall Street is “printing fake Bitcoin.”
It’s simply what Wall Street does to every valuable asset: it monetizes it, layers it, leverages it, and turns it into a fee-generating machine.
Bitcoin was never going to remain a pure peer-to-peer experiment once it became a trillion-dollar macro trade.
The maxis may not like it, but institutionalization is not optional anymore.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel for daily crypto updates, market insights, and expert analysis.
The post Bitcoin Maxis Are Ignoring the Biggest Threat Yet appeared first on CaptainAltcoin.
#BTC   #XRP $BTC  
$XRP

Stablecoins are no longer an experiment. They already function as money across payrolls, remittances, treasury operations, and cross-border settlement. In many regions, they are used daily by people who have little interest in crypto itself. What’s increasingly clear, however, is that the infrastructure carrying these stablecoins has not evolved at the same pace as their usage.
This is not a technical failure. It is an economic one.
Most blockchains were designed in environments where speculation mattered more than predictability. Their fee markets, incentive structures, and governance models reflect that origin. Volatility is not merely tolerated — it is often profitable. Congestion creates fee spikes. Uncertainty creates trading activity. Optionality preserves narrative flexibility. These dynamics work well for markets. They work poorly for payments.
Payment infrastructure demands the opposite properties.
Payments prioritize predictability over flexibility. Costs need to be forecastable. Finality needs to be clear and deterministic. Surface area needs to be limited so behavior remains consistent over time. These constraints reduce optionality, dampen volatility, and make systems less exciting. They also make them reliable.
That reliability comes at a cost most blockchains are unwilling to pay.
Volatile native gas tokens are a useful example. From a market perspective, they make sense. They align validator incentives with network activity and allow congestion to be priced dynamically. From a payment perspective, they introduce unnecessary risk. Users choosing stablecoins to avoid volatility are still forced to manage exposure to volatile assets simply to move value. This contradiction is rarely framed as a design failure, but it is one.
The same tension appears in finality. In trading environments, delayed or probabilistic finality is tolerable. Participants price risk, hedge exposure, and wait. In payment systems, waiting is friction. Businesses and institutions need to know when funds are settled and irreversible. Anything less introduces reconciliation overhead, operational uncertainty, and counterparty risk.
Most general-purpose chains treat these issues as acceptable tradeoffs. Payments are expected to adapt to the system, not the other way around.
That expectation is becoming harder to defend as stablecoin usage moves beyond trading and into real economic workflows. Payroll systems cannot pause for fee volatility. Remittance corridors cannot absorb unpredictable confirmation times. Merchants cannot treat settlement as probabilistic without bearing additional risk.
This is where the conflict becomes unavoidable.
To behave like payment infrastructure, a blockchain must constrain itself. It must limit variability in fees. It must prioritize deterministic finality over expressive flexibility. It must absorb complexity at the protocol level rather than pushing it onto users. These choices reduce narrative agility and speculative upside. They also remove profitable uncertainty.
In other words, becoming good at payments often makes a network worse at being a market.
Plasma appears to accept this tradeoff deliberately. Rather than treating stablecoins as applications layered onto a general-purpose environment, it treats settlement as the organizing principle of the system. That choice narrows scope. It removes certain levers. It makes the system less adaptable to every possible use case. It also makes its behavior more predictable.
Gasless stablecoin transfers illustrate this shift. Removing the requirement to hold a volatile intermediary asset is not a convenience feature. It is a statement about what users should and should not be exposed to. When the protocol absorbs that complexity, the transaction begins to resemble settlement rather than participation in a market.
Fast, deterministic finality reinforces the same philosophy. The value is not speed for its own sake, but clarity. When settlement is explicit, downstream systems can rely on it without hedging assumptions. Accounting simplifies. Risk management improves. The infrastructure recedes from view.
Even Plasma’s decision to remain fully compatible with existing execution environments reflects restraint rather than ambition. Familiar tooling reduces surprises. Mature workflows reduce operational risk. Infrastructure adoption compounds through predictability, not novelty.
None of this produces spectacle. It does not generate excitement cycles or narrative velocity. Systems built around predictability rarely do. They tend to disappear into the background once they work well enough.
That disappearance is not failure. In financial infrastructure, it is often success.
As stablecoins continue to outgrow speculative use cases, the networks that carry them will be judged by different criteria. Not how flexible they are, or how many things they can support, but how little they demand attention once value starts moving.
Most blockchains were not designed for that role, and many cannot adopt it without undermining their own economics. Plasma’s bet is that some constraints are worth accepting even if they make the system less exciting.
In payments, excitement rarely scales. Predictability does.
@Plasma #Plasma
#BitcoinETFWatch #CZAMAonBinanceSquare
$XPL

Let’s be real.
Precious metals haven’t lived up to the name lately. After hitting record highs just weeks ago—gold near $5,600 an ounce and silver above $120—both were slammed in a single session. Gold dropped roughly 9%. Silver plunged more than 25%. Prices unraveled fast, with gold sliding back toward the $4,700–$5,000 range and silver sinking below $90 before buyers finally stepped in to slow the damage.
The irony is obvious. Gold and silver are supposed to be safe havens, assets investors lean on when markets get shaky. This sell-off showed how fragile that narrative can be. A stronger U.S. dollar and rising real interest rates were key drivers. Since gold and silver don’t generate yield, higher returns on cash make them less attractive. And because they’re priced in dollars, a stronger dollar naturally pressures prices lower.
The real catalyst was a shift in expectations around the Federal Reserve. Signals that the Fed would stay more aggressive than markets anticipated reduced the urgency to hold metals as inflation hedges. That sparked a rush to unwind long positions—especially leveraged ones. Once selling began, it fed on itself and accelerated the drop.
This move is a clear reminder that precious metals aren’t immune to short-term market psychology. When a rally gets crowded, even a small shift in sentiment can turn “safe” assets into a rollercoaster. Late buyers who chased the highs took the hardest hits, while larger players trimmed exposure or exited early.
In moments like this, “precious” feels like a stretch. Gold and silver can swing just as violently as stocks or crypto when fear meets heavy positioning. That doesn’t erase their long-term role as stores of value—but it does highlight a hard truth: in the short term, they’re just as vulnerable to market chaos as any risk asset.
#PreciousMetalsTurbulence #WhenWillBTCRebound
#PreciousMetalsTurbulence #ZAMAPreTGESale #USPPIJump $BTC