Page 30

‍

3. Irretrievable Burn Addresses: Intentional Coin Removal

‍

There are cases where BTC has been intentionally sent to unspendable addresses, such as:

‍

1BitcoinEaterAddressDontSendf59kuE

‍

3BitcoinBurnAddressxxxyyyzzzz

‍

These are called “burn addresses”, where no private key exists, and thus no one can ever retrieve the BTC. While not a formal protocol mechanism, these community-led burns have historically occurred for symbolic, donation, or contract-related reasons.

‍

Although rare, they represent an additional layer of supply loss akin to burn mechanisms in other token ecosystems.

‍

"Bitcoin Burn Addresses and What They Mean" – CryptoVantage

‍

4. Halving Events: Scheduled Issuance Decay

‍

Bitcoin’s most critical structural feature contributing to deflationary dynamics is the halving mechanism. Every 210,000 blocks (~4 years), the block reward is cut in half, reducing new supply issuance by 50%. This leads to a predictable decay in circulating supply growth, eventually approaching zero.

‍

The halving schedule:

‍

2009: 50 BTC per block

‍

2012: 25 BTC

‍

2016: 12.5 BTC

‍

2020: 6.25 BTC

‍

2024: 3.125 BTC (estimated April 20–25, 2024)

‍

2028: 1.5625 BTC

‍

... until reward rounds to zero (~2140)

‍

Each halving increases effective scarcity and introduces a deflationary monetary shock into the market—often catalyzing massive supply-demand dislocations.

‍

This halving-induced reduction is not a burn per se, but has the same net economic effect as removing coins from the total available pool each cycle.

‍

Source:

"Bitcoin Halving Explained" – Investopedia

‍

5. Network Fee Dynamics and Fee Burn Debate

‍

Although Bitcoin does not burn transaction fees (unlike Ethereum after EIP-1559), there has been ongoing academic debate around whether a fee burn mechanism should ever be implemented to counterbalance declining subsidy revenue.

‍

The consensus within the Bitcoin community remains against such a change due to:

‍

Bitcoin’s conservatism against protocol modifications

‍

Philosophical opposition to discretionary economic manipulation

‍

Technical concerns about network congestion under fee-burning regimes

‍

As a result, Bitcoin continues to direct all fees toward miners—providing revenue sustainability rather than deflation via burns.

‍

"Bitcoin Fees: To Burn or Not to Burn?" – Bitcoin Magazine

‍

6. Burn Effects from Hodling Behavior

‍

A more abstract form of supply removal occurs through long-term holding behavior (“HODLing”). Chain analytics consistently show that:

‍

Over 60% of all BTC has not moved in over one year

‍

Long-term holders represent the vast majority of the effective float

‍

This “HODL-induced illiquidity” mimics burn dynamics in that large chunks of supply are temporarily or indefinitely removed from circulation, reducing sell pressure and creating scarcity-like effects.

‍

This dynamic is critical for VCs and institutional allocators to understand: effective supply is often far lower than headline circulating supply.

‍

"Bitcoin HODL Waves" – Glassnode

‍

7. Comparative Perspective: Bitcoin vs. Ethereum EIP-1559 Burn Model

‍

Ethereum implemented a native burn mechanism in EIP-1559, where a portion of all transaction fees is permanently destroyed, creating real-time deflationary pressure.

‍

This has led some analysts to argue that ETH is becoming more deflationary than BTC.

‍

However, Bitcoin’s proponents argue:

‍

BTC’s loss-driven passive burn model is irreversible

‍

Its hard cap is fixed, unlike ETH’s variable monetary policy

‍

BTC’s narrative of absolute scarcity is more compelling for long-term capital

‍

Thus, Bitcoin may not have the most aggressive burn model—but it maintains the most trustless and predictable monetary policy in crypto.

‍

Source:

"Ethereum Supply Drops After EIP-1559 Burn Update" – Decrypt

‍

8. Final Take: Burn by Design, Not by Function

‍

Bitcoin does not need a formalized burn mechanism because scarcity is embedded into the DNA of the protocol. The combination of:

‍

Capped supply

‍

Passive burn via lost keys

‍

Predictable issuance halving

‍

HODLing-based illiquidity

‍

…produces a system where supply shock events occur organically, not artificially. For allocators, this provides strong long-term supply-side investment tailwinds, without the need to rely on discretionary or political burn events that plague other ecosystems.

‍

References:

‍

1. "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" by Satoshi Nakamoto

https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

‍

2. "Research: 3.7 Million Bitcoin Could Be Lost Forever" – Chainalysis

https://blog.chainalysis.com/reports/missing-bitcoins/

‍

3. "Bitcoin Burn Addresses and What They Mean" – CryptoVantage

https://www.cryptovantage.com/news/what-is-a-bitcoin-burn-address/

‍

4. "Bitcoin Halving Explained" – Investopedia

https://www.investopedia.com/bitcoin-halving-4843769

‍

5. "Bitcoin Fees: To Burn or Not to Burn?" – Bitcoin Magazine

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/technical/bitcoin-fee-burning-controversy

‍

6. "Bitcoin HODL Waves" – Glassnode

https://studio.glassnode.com/metrics?a=BTC&m=distribution.HodlWaves

‍

7. "Ethereum Supply Drops After EIP-1559 Burn Update" – Decrypt

https://decrypt.co/83425/ethereum-eip-1559-fee-burning

‍

8. Financials & Funding (continued)

E. Use of Funds and Runway

‍

“No Treasury, No Burn Rate, No Budget—Yet Bitcoin Marches On: Understanding Resource Allocation in a Protocol Without Central Spending”

‍

In traditional venture investment due diligence, a key metric is understanding how a project utilizes capital: What is the burn rate? What percentage of funds go to R&D, marketing, infrastructure, or team compensation? What’s the runway?

‍

However, Bitcoin radically departs from this framework. Bitcoin has no centralized fund usage model, no foundation allocating grants, and no formal budgeting structure. Yet it continues to grow, evolve, and dominate market capitalization metrics.

‍

In this section, we explore how Bitcoin’s decentralized architecture and external funding ecosystem create a new paradigm for understanding “use of funds,” despite the absence of a conventional treasury or spending roadmap.

‍

1. Bitcoin’s Core Principle: No Protocol-Level Spending

‍

Bitcoin was architected without a central treasury or fund allocation mechanism. The protocol does not hold coins, disburse capital, or budget for internal expenses. This is by design and reflects the philosophical commitment to decentralization and neutrality.

‍

No marketing budget

‍

No treasury management strategy

‍

No ecosystem grant allocation

‍

No developer compensation by the protocol

‍

All capital inflows and spending occur outside the protocol through voluntary, decentralized, and independently governed entities.

‍

Source:

"Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" – Satoshi Nakamoto

‍

2. Developer Ecosystem Spending: Externalized but Transparent

‍

While the protocol itself has no budget, development in Bitcoin Core and its supporting infrastructure is funded by external institutions, including:

‍

Non-profit organizations

‍

Philanthropic funds

‍

Corporate sponsors

‍

Example: Brink.dev, a nonprofit developer fellowship

‍

Provides full-time funding for Bitcoin Core contributors

‍

Offers public transparency reports on fund disbursement

‍

Grants range from $50K–$150K per developer annually

‍

Other key sponsors include:

‍

Block (formerly Square Crypto) – Developer grants, open-source tooling

‍

Chaincode Labs – Developer residency programs

‍

HRF Bitcoin Dev Fund – Focus on privacy and human rights tooling

‍

These entities handle what, in other ecosystems, would be part of a protocol’s “R&D spending.”

‍

Source:

"Brink Developer Fellowship" – Brink.dev

https://brink.dev/fellowship

‍

3. Runway Calculation in a Non-Spending Protocol

‍

Since Bitcoin doesn’t operate with a treasury reserve or spend rate, “runway” in the traditional sense doesn’t apply. However, we can assess sustainability by evaluating:

‍

Continuity of external funding programs

‍

Health of corporate and philanthropic sponsor pipelines

‍

Momentum of developer contributions across time

‍

According to data from Optech and GitHub, Bitcoin Core development has remained consistent since 2017, with over 50 active developers in any given quarter—even without protocol funding.

‍

Developer funding sustainability is a proxy for Bitcoin’s financial runway.

‍

Source:

"Bitcoin Core Contributor Metrics" – Bitcoin Optech

‍

4. Mining Sector Spending: Network CapEx and OpEx as a Proxy for Investment Activity

‍

In the absence of protocol spending, miners represent the most active financial stakeholders in the ecosystem. Their capital allocations include:

‍

ASIC hardware procurement (Bitmain S19, Antminer XP series)

‍

Energy contracts and infrastructure buildout

‍

Data center operations and maintenance

‍

Treasury BTC retention strategies

‍

Mining companies effectively act as Bitcoin’s network-level capital investors, deploying billions in aggregate CapEx and operational expenses. These investments:

‍

Drive hash rate growth

‍

Secure the network

‍

Reflect confidence in BTC’s economic viability

‍

As of Q1 2024, the top five public mining firms (e.g., Marathon Digital, Riot Platforms) had over $3 billion in combined CapEx over 12 months (Bloomberg, 2024).

‍

5. Indirect Spending via Ecosystem Startups and Layer-2 Infrastructure

‍

Though Bitcoin itself does not spend funds, the ecosystem surrounding it deploys capital at scale. Key spending vectors include:

‍

Lightning Network development (e.g., Lightning Labs, Strike)

‍

Custodial services (e.g., Casa, BitGo)

‍

Developer tools (e.g., Umbrel, Specter)

‍

Hardware wallet manufacturing (e.g., Ledger, Trezor)

‍

Venture capital, corporate investors, and grants fuel these firms. Their expenditure on engineering, security audits, UX development, and education feeds back into Bitcoin’s broader utility.

‍

This forms a decentralized funding web, in which independent firms execute the functional equivalent of what protocol teams do in other ecosystems.

‍

6. Public Company BTC Treasury Strategies as Functional Spending

‍

Although not directly part of Bitcoin’s development, the allocation of BTC on corporate balance sheets introduces macro-scale capital dynamics that act as indirect investment.

‍

Example:

‍

MicroStrategy: Holds over 190,000 BTC, continuously acquiring coins using equity raises and debt instruments. These purchases inject market demand and liquidity into the ecosystem.

‍

Tesla: Initially allocated $1.5B to BTC as a treasury asset.

‍

Block (Square): Continues to hold BTC on balance sheet and invest in open-source dev initiatives.

‍

While not “spending” in the protocol sense, these allocations represent significant capital use cases driving long-term market sustainability.

‍

Source:

"MicroStrategy Bitcoin Strategy" – Investor Relations

https://www.microstrategy.com/en/investor-relations/bitcoin

‍

7. No Marketing Spend: Organic Network Effect vs. Paid Growth

‍

Bitcoin’s dominance has been achieved without centralized marketing. There is no ad budget, influencer campaign, or grant-funded evangelism—unlike protocols like Solana or Avalanche, which invest millions in promotional partnerships.

‍

Instead, Bitcoin's growth is driven by:

‍

Grassroots education via podcasts, newsletters, social media

‍

Community meetups and open-source conferences (e.g., Bitcoin Miami)

‍

Narrative virality: “digital gold,” “sovereign money,” “inflation hedge”

‍

This organic growth engine has proven more resilient than centralized promotional efforts, offering allocators higher signal-to-noise exposure without marketing overhead.

‍

Source:

"Bitcoin and the Rise of Decentralized Evangelism" – Bitcoin Magazine

‍

8. Emerging Trends in Capital Deployment: Decentralized Public Goods Funding

‍

New initiatives are emerging to create sustainable Bitcoin development funding without compromising decentralization:

‍

OpenSats.org: Donation-based developer funding platform

‍

Geyser Fund: Crowdfunding for Bitcoin builders

‍

BIP-RFC standardization efforts: Community-led proposal refinement

‍

These platforms mirror the emergence of “Gitcoin-style” decentralized public goods ecosystems, but adapted to Bitcoin’s culture of minimalism and ideological purity.

‍

Source:

"OpenSats – Support Bitcoin and FOSS Contributors"

‍

9. Final Take: A Protocol Without Spend, Yet a Thriving Economy

‍

Bitcoin’s financial architecture represents a monumental shift in how capital is allocated and growth is achieved. There is:

‍

No central team

‍

No protocol-based expenditure

‍

No treasury reserve

‍

Yet billions flow into its security, development, adoption layers, and custodial infrastructure—all funded externally, voluntarily, and transparently.

‍

For investors, this means:

‍

Risk: No discretionary capital to support downturns

‍

Reward: Unparalleled decentralization and neutrality

‍

In a world where most protocols operate like startups, Bitcoin functions more like a self-sustaining institution—one where capital flows not from the top down, but from the margins inward.

‍

References:

‍

1. "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" – Satoshi Nakamoto

https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

‍

2. "Brink Developer Fellowship" – Brink.dev

https://brink.dev/fellowship

‍

3. "Bitcoin Core Contributor Metrics" – Bitcoin Optech

https://bitcoinops.org/en/newsletters/

‍

4. "Bitcoin Miners Plan Expansion Ahead of Halving" – Bloomberg

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-10/bitcoin-miners-plan-expansion-ahead-of-halving

‍

5. "Lightning Labs Ecosystem Update" – Lightning Labs

https://lightning.engineering/posts/

‍

6. "MicroStrategy Bitcoin Strategy" – Investor Relations

https://www.microstrategy.com/en/investor-relations/bitcoin

‍

7. "Bitcoin and the Rise of Decentralized Evangelism" – Bitcoin Magazine

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/bitcoin-evangelism

‍

8. "OpenSats – Support Bitcoin and FOSS Contributors"

https://opensats.org/

‍

8. Financials & Funding (continued)

F. VC Involvement and Influence

‍

“The Anti-VC Asset Class: How Bitcoin Became the Institutional Darling Without Ever Needing Venture Capital”

‍

In most crypto projects, venture capital (VC) involvement is foundational. Startups raise seed rounds, distribute early tokens, and offer equity or convertible instruments in exchange for strategic capital. These funds often come with influence—over development direction, tokenomics, or even governance.

‍

Bitcoin is a rare exception.

‍

It is arguably the most valuable digital asset ever created, yet it raised zero venture capital at the protocol level, distributed no tokens to insiders, and maintains no formal VC governance structure. Still, paradoxically, Bitcoin has become one of the most heavily institutionally adopted assets in the digital asset universe.

‍

This section explores how Bitcoin’s relationship with venture capital has evolved—from complete absence to indirect institutional backing—while analyzing the risks and opportunities this creates for allocators.

‍

1. No VC at Genesis: A Pure, Decentralized Launch

‍

Bitcoin launched in 2009 with zero capital injection, no private round, no seed investment, and no insider allocation. Satoshi Nakamoto mined the first coins themselves and released the code publicly under an MIT license.

‍

No ICO

‍

No SAFEs or SAFTs

‍

No cap table

‍

No foundation equity

‍

This makes Bitcoin the only major digital asset whose value was not initially influenced by VC capital, setting it apart from Ethereum (VC-backed), Solana (VC-backed), Avalanche (VC-backed), and others.

‍

Source:

"Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" – Satoshi Nakamoto

https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

‍

2. VC Capital Redirected to Infrastructure, Not Protocol

‍

While VCs could not invest in Bitcoin’s protocol, they quickly shifted focus to building around it. Early and later-stage funding flowed into Bitcoin-centric infrastructure startups, including:

‍

Exchanges: Coinbase, Kraken, Bitstamp

‍

Custodians: BitGo, Xapo, Casa

‍

Hardware Wallets: Ledger, Trezor

‍

Mining Firms: Bitmain, Marathon, Riot

‍

Service Protocols: Lightning Labs, Blockstream

‍

Notable VC Milestones:

‍

Coinbase Seed Round (2012): $600K led by Y Combinator

‍

BitGo Seed Round (2014): $12M from Redpoint Ventures

‍

Xapo Series A (2014): $20M from Benchmark, Greylock

‍

Lightning Labs Series A (2020): $10M from Craft Ventures, Twitter’s Jack Dorsey

‍

These investments indirectly benefited Bitcoin by strengthening the infrastructure needed for mass adoption, institutional custody, and market access.

‍

Sources:

"Coinbase Raises Seed Round" – TechCrunch

"BitGo Raises $12M" – CoinDesk

‍

Thank you for taking the time to read this article. We invite you to explore more content on our blog for additional insights and information.

https://www.thestandard.io/blog  

‍

"If you have any comments, questions, or suggestions, please do not hesitate to reach out to us at [Email “Coming Soon”]. We appreciate your feedback and look forward to hearing from you."

‍

CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE

PAGE 31: To Be Continue...