Well, it’s not. Unless you think the entire value of our entire world economy will become zero. Merely predicting that the value of something will become zero doesn’t automatically make it zero-sum.
In order for a game to be zero-sum, that requirement must be built into the rules of the game. That isn’t true in either of these cases (Bitcoin nor $SPY).
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game (emphasis added):
> Zero-sum games are a specific example of constant sum games where the sum of each outcome is always zero. Such games are distributive, not integrative; the pie cannot be enlarged by good negotiation.
It is precisely that difference which (I think) makes it zero-sum
Even if this was true (it is not) this still does not make an exchange of Bitcoin a zero-sum game.
I’ll prove it.
Let’s first denominate value in BTC to simplify this. I then mine one Bitcoin with less than 1 BTC-worth of energy (I wouldn’t mine it, otherwise). I now have 1 - (cost of energy) BTC,
I then give my BTC to someone else in exchange for a Widget. I now have a Widget, and they have a non-zero amount of BTC.
At no point are the sum of our two assets equal to zero, and they never could be. This could never be a zero-sum game, either by definition or in practice. There is always a non-zero net value after adding up all assets and debts between all of the players.
My background: I studied Applied Math in college, with a focus in finance, game theory, and computer science. I studied games and game theory extensively.
You are correct mining is at least surface level not zero sum. If you apply the assumption that the energy, computing equipment and time were worth less than the resulting btc. But given the fact it has no intrinsic value… is only valuable in exchanging between fiats… I don’t think those assumptions hold.
Money is created by loans by banks.
> A Ponzi scheme (/ˈpɒnzi/, Italian: [ˈpontsi]) is a form of fraud that lures investors and pays profits to earlier investors with funds from more recent investors.[1] The scheme leads victims to believe that profits are coming from legitimate business activity (e.g., product sales or successful investments), and they remain unaware that other investors are the source of funds
Do you see a distinction between this and the system theli0nheart described?
It is pretty silly when people who are calling bitcoin a "currency" and autonomous blockchain agents "smart contracts" complain anytime the term "ponzi scheme" is used for a zero sum speculative asset that only pays out gains to existing holders by bringing in new "investors".
Let’s say we all invested in Bitcoin today and only bought from people who had purchased at $10000. Then, in two years, if we sell our Bitcoin for $100000, we all make money. That’s not a zero-sum game because no one lost money.