Why is BCH a fraction of the BTC price?

It is a well known & studied phenomenon, that when companies reach a critical mass of size & success, they take less risks & become more comfortable in their status & "rest on their laurels."

When asked, "Why is BCH a fraction of the Market Cap of BTC?" it hit me in a profound way. I had never thought about this question too deeply.

In order to answer this question, we must ask who the users of BTC are? Take a moment to think about that, and leave your answer in the comments before reading on.

From my assessment, it's mostly Miners, Exchanges, Traders, Big Pocket speculators, & early investors (of note; mostly cypherpunk & libertarian types).

It makes sense for all parties that are sharing in the immense recognized value of BTC (as measured in $USD) for them to be ultra-conservative in preserving the BTC network as a SoV. They do not want to risk losing out on their investment by tampering with the protocol, while also believing that playing defense as the method for ending the corruption & violence inherent in Fiat money. They don't have an interest in using it as a payments network, rather as a value transfer network, as distinct from a payments network with payments implying coffee-level transactions, whereas value transfer implies transactions of higher value.

I've struggled, as an avid Bitcoiner, to find sensible discussion on the trade-offs that are presented by the blocksize being capped at 1MB, and the very real Opportunity Costs of keeping this Block Size limit. This discussion seems to have been forfeited by those influencers in the BTC party, which is important as an educational tool, given there is no Marketing or Personal Relations department for Bitcoin. Hence, the creation of BCH, which seeks to optimize for the trade-off between security (SoV) vs utility (MoE), in accordance to the cost of storage & cost of computation. The BCH belief is that the enhancement of utility from a reasonable Block Size increase is disproportionately beneficial to the network. With the current cost for the infrastructure supporting the Bitcoin Network (storage & computation), adequate security/decentralization can be maintained while increasing the utility of the network by enabling transactions to be faster & cheaper than the 1MB limit allows for. Thinking of the 2017 Bull-Run where tx fees were $10, locking up many peoples BTC whom wanted to USE the network to transact, served as a significant deterrent to newcomers by showing them, through harsh experience, the LACK of utility of Bitcoin as a money, given that MoE, as history shows, is a vital characteristic of the money that has arisen from the market.

Where this rational discussion gets corrupted, is the prevailing viewpoint over decentralization as the ULTIMATE GOOD for destroying Fiat currency. A noble goal, indeed, but decentralization for the sake of decentralization is silly. I don't think any serious BTC'ers believe that. It's simply a difference in assessment of the risk of a coordinated attack from a State actor ie China, USA, or a combo of major Fiat G20 countries, and HOW to ward off these attacks. BTC takes a radical defensive approach. BSV takes a radical offensive approach. BCH seeks an optimal balance of both. To provide an example. In football, a good defense, on it's own, cannot thrive. If the offense is terrible & cannot convert a first down, the defense is left to stay on the field & become fatigued, which then leaves them more vulnerable to the other teams offense. As a result, the otherwise STELLAR defense, on its own, ends up breaking down & losing to a team with worse defense, due to their better offense.

Additionally, there are only a select few individuals competent enough to examine the open-source-code of Bitcoin, in order to guide the network. Many choose to trust these individuals, & don't have much of a choice given the unfeasable amount of time & effort required to have a competent opinion on the matter. Given the incentives of these Gatekeepers of the code, it is not unlike the incentives of the FDA & drug regulation. Wherein, the Fed is incentivized to be ULTRA conservative on permitting drugs for use on the open market because if it turns out to be harmful, they are then liable for the corresponding deaths. And the cost of this? Hundreds of thousands of deaths via prohibiting people from obtaining life curing treatments, and not to mention the cost in a decreased quality of life for millions that would be have their lives significantly enhanced by using certain substances.

Bitcoin BTC serves & caters to a niche market of cypherpunk, libertarian, & wealthy people. They have a different risk tolerance & have a higher assessment of the risk of a coordinated attack on the network, so that they value the SoV quality of money more highly than the MoE quality, which affects their strategy for acheiving Monetary Sovereignty. This provides a unique opportunity & competitive advantage for BCH to play offense in the market of Cryptocurrencies. Providing money that eliminates trust in a third-party, places this trust into math & game theory, which serves to unite individuals across the world, enabling trade to proceed unencumbered by banks, country regulation, & fiat currency translation. Trade which has been proven to be the key to wealth creation, peace, & civility amongst people. BCH's strategy towards enabling Monetary Sovereignty is to increase adoption with a reasonable Block Size for adequate security & increased use-ability, which in-turn increases use, which increases decentralization, and increases security.

I seek to contribute to both projects by using & educating people on them & the value each can provide to individuals based on their unique set of preferences & needs. I don't claim to know definitively that one or the other strategy will prevail for achieving Monetary Sovereignty. Right now, both can be used to service this end. And Heck, even the 2000 Baltimore Ravens routed the Giants in the Super Bowl on DEFENSE ALONE! But as a coach, it is a much better strategy to improve the offense for success, which BCH seeks to do, while having adequate defense as well to support the offense (granted football presents zero-sum game as opposed to game of wealth creation on an open market). I hold & use both, & I think both can co-exist in serving different users. However, I believe BCH to be the undervalued chain on a 5 year time horizon as I see much greater potential for growth on the BCH network given that it's uniquely positioned to add value to an untapped & under-served market, and thus, increasing demand for the network, and increasing the purchasing power of the bitcoins native to the network.

In conclusion, BCH is a fraction of the price given the current demographic of people within the Cryptocurrency Market, and the dynamic within the BTC ecosystem (miners, coders, users). The money in this Cryprocurrency Market has shown to value Security (SoV) over Transactability (MoE). This being the case, BCH is granted a competitive advantage in the Cryptocurrency Market in order to reach & service a broader market (ie why @Jack is in Africa), and presents higher potential for growth of the BCH network, and yielding a better ROI for those participating in the network.

Please contribute to the debate. Leave your thoughts & criticisms in the comments section.

Follow me on Twitter for more stream of thought Bitcoin commentary. twitter.com/@seanballard