Bitcoin's 21 million cap got challenged. The real fight is who pays miners after 2036.
Eli Ben-Sasson's 4% idea probably dies on sight, but it puts Bitcoin's security budget problem where everyone can see it.
CryptoVibe Desk · bitcoin · mining · starkware
- →StarkWare CEO Eli Ben-Sasson proposed replacing Bitcoin's 21 million cap with a maximum 4% annual issuance rule.
- →The proposal is less about inflation today and more about who keeps paying miners as block rewards shrink.
- →Watch fees after the next two halvings, because the fee-only security argument needs real numbers, not slogans.
- block subsidy → The block subsidy is the new Bitcoin miners receive for adding a valid block to the chain.
- security budget → A security budget is the money miners earn for protecting the network from attacks.
- issuance cap → An issuance cap is a rule that limits how many new coins can be created over time.
- lost coins → Lost coins are Bitcoin that still exist on-chain but cannot move because the private keys are gone.
Eli Ben-Sasson put Bitcoin's taboo on the table. On July 7, the StarkWare co-founder proposed replacing Bitcoin's 21 million cap with a maximum 4% annual issuance rule, according to Crypto Briefing and CoinTelegraph.
The maximalist answer was fast and predictable. No. But the code question is harder than the culture answer. Bitcoin's miner revenue is a security input, not a slogan. If block rewards keep falling and fees do not grow enough, miners secure more value for less pay.
Ben-Sasson's claim has two parts. First, Crypto Briefing reports his view that 3 million to 4 million BTC may be permanently inaccessible. That would mean about 15% to 20% of total supply is effectively gone. The usual Bitcoin answer is clean: lost coins make remaining coins scarcer. That argument works for holders. It does not pay miners.
Second, the subsidy keeps shrinking by design. Crypto Briefing says Bitcoin's block subsidy is projected to fall below 1 BTC per block around 2036. If you're holding Bitcoin, that date matters more than the daily price candle. After each halving, fees need to carry more of the security bill.
Ben-Sasson's 4% proposal is not open-ended inflation as described in the reports. It is a ceiling, not a required print button. The tradeoff is simple: give up absolute supply certainty for a permanent miner revenue backstop. Bitcoin culture treats that first part as a non-starter, and honestly, it probably is.
Still, rejecting the fix does not delete the bug report. This is a security budget stress test made public. The engineers know this. The marketing team pretends fee revenue will just arrive when needed.
The 2017 block size war is the useful memory here. Bitcoin did not resolve that fight by optimizing for throughput. It chose social consensus around the existing rule set, and Bitcoin Cash became the exit path. A 21 million cap fight would be even more brutal.
StarkWare also has skin in this. Its Bitcoin push, including strkBTC, depends on Bitcoin base-layer security staying credible after subsidies shrink. That makes Ben-Sasson conflicted, but not automatically wrong. Read the mechanism, not the reaction.
The proposal will almost certainly go nowhere. The only number that matters is whether fees can replace subsidy before the subsidy becomes symbolic. If they can't, Bitcoin's hardest rule becomes part of a much harder engineering tradeoff.
Bitcoin Core maintainers are right to leave the 21 million cap untouched, but Ben-Sasson's fee-security fight is useful. The post-2036 model still needs proof, not vibes.
By the 2028 halving, watch whether transaction fees cover at least 20% of miner revenue for a full quarter without congestion spikes.
Primary links and supporting reads used by the desk for this story.
Forward this.
