In an economy dependent on borrowing, that matters. Woo points to the global rush to finance AI infrastructure as an example of debt-fueled expansion. Concerns about a potential crash in the AI data center boom add another layer to the debate.
His broader point is blunt: scarce money can make credit-driven growth harder to sustain.
Gold’s Old Playbook Offers A Clue
History provides a useful comparison. Under the gold standard, the ratio of paper money to gold backing increased to reduce lending risks. The arrangement allowed credit to expand beyond the scarce reserve asset itself.
That distinction matters. A fixed monetary base doesn’t automatically eliminate lending, but the way credit develops around it could shape the economy.
Fewer Bubbles, But At What Cost?
Woo doesn’t present slower growth as an entirely bad outcome. A satoshi-based economy, using the smallest unit of the currency, could grow much more slowly while experiencing fewer bubbles.
Still, not everyone buys his reasoning. One user argued that savings build capital from the bottom up. Woo countered that economic expansion depends on technology, energy, and raw materials, all requiring large-scale infrastructure and substantial capital.
Woo has also argued that crypto markets may follow a six-to-eight-year debt cycle.
Bitcoin’s Hard Money Debate Isn’t Over
The disagreement comes down to competing priorities. Supporters point to the dollar’s declining purchasing power as a reason to embrace hard money. Critics worry that a fixed supply could constrain credit and economic expansion.
Bitcoin’s fixed supply might discourage some excesses, but it also raises difficult questions about financing growth. Whether fewer bubbles justify slower expansion remains the central question.
