pull down to refresh

There's thousands of transactions nearly every block.

That's true. I guess what I meant is that despite this, there is no demand driving fees above nearly rock bottom.

Mining cannot be "profitable" over a long time horizon, it's not meant to be. Market dynamics mean profit will always be arbitraged out. Break-even mining, waste-heat generation (space heaters etc), ideological mining, altruism, or as a institutional security COST are keys to decentralization.

These are exactly the kinds of ideas I was looking for with my post Thank you! I was trying to think of scenarios where mining is not profitable.

For-profit mining is an anomalous condition created not only by the subsidy, but real world transient activity like arbitrage on stranded energy (nat gas wells) and reduced data center footprints for legacy compute (AI is finally squeezing this out), the treasury company fad (publicly traded miners), and demand by institutions for provenance coins (new coin base coins without a chainalysis history that institutional lawyers see as a liability)

Interesting idea that it was never meant to be profitable. I mean in most industries, profit gets arbitraged down, but not out completely because otherwise people would stop. What makes mining materially different in this sense? Exactly those things such as altruistic mining, waste-heat, etc?

Bitcoin the industry is different than Bitcoin the network or Bitcoin the money

Since blocks are not a product or service, there's no sales pipeline, nor a moat a producer has to protect margin. It's completely arbitrage-based.

Given the perfect arbitrage for lack of moat or sales pipeline, the non-monetary reasons to mine drive that arb negative. Altruism, waste heat, ideology, provenance premium all add competition to production costs.

That's not to say miners will always operate at a loss, just the reward will have to come from somewhere other than arb we associate with mining today. The industry must and will change.

Focusing on industrial scale and not just plebs running space heaters, the best example is provenance coins being worth more than "used" coins to institutions. If it cost 100k to mine 95k worth of coin, but an institution will pay 105k for the provenance coin, the miner is still up 5k/coin despite mining at a loss.

If a greenhouse spends 100k to mine 95k worth of coin, but saves 10k on their heating bill, they're still up 5k/coin despite mining at a loss.

We can then scale these principles to the pleb with space/water heaters, or to national banks of sovereign countries that don't want foreign countries in complete control of the ledger they use for the world reserve currency. They may mine at substantial loss simply to protect their holdings because they assign it an insurance value beyond the mine value of the coin.

I think it's healthy that fees are at the lower bound, I want to see less industrial mining, more decentralized mining... if fee's were higher it'd favor at-scale mining who can better arbitrage it.

reply