I once published an article called:

I Never Sell My Bitcoin Anymore — I Borrow Against It and Get Paid Instead.

The title was honest.

But it was not the complete truth.

I do not currently plan to sell my Bitcoin.

I would rather hold the asset, borrow conservatively against part of it and create liquidity without giving up my long-term exposure.

That is what I have been doing.

But “I never sell” becomes a dangerous sentence if it means:

Nothing could ever change my mind.

Bitcoin is not a religion.

It is an asset I own because of a specific investment thesis.

And if that thesis changes, my decision should change with it.

So I forced myself to answer a question I had avoided:

What would actually make me sell my Bitcoin?

Not what would make me nervous.

Not what would make the price fall.

Not what would dominate social media for a week.

What would have to happen for me to conclude that the reason I own Bitcoin is no longer valid?

The answer was clearer than I expected.

A Falling Price Would Not Be Enough

Let me begin with what would not automatically make me sell.

A 20% decline would not do it.

Neither would 30%, 40% or even 50%.

Bitcoin has experienced violent corrections throughout its history. Anyone who owns it without accepting that possibility probably owns too much.

A falling price can mean many things:

• Investors need liquidity

• Leverage is being removed

• Interest-rate expectations have changed

• Risk assets are being sold

• A speculative cycle has ended

• Fear has temporarily overwhelmed conviction

None of those events necessarily changes Bitcoin itself.

Price is what the market is willing to pay today.

The investment thesis is the reason I believe the asset may remain valuable over a much longer period.

Those are not the same thing.

I learned that distinction slowly.

For years, I focused on the same question as everyone else:

How high can Bitcoin go?

Eventually, I realised that price was not the most interesting part of the story.

Supply was.

I Used to Think I Had Enough Bitcoin. Then I Learned How Bitcoin Actually Works

The Numbers Behind My Thesis

Bitcoin’s monetary rules limit the total supply to approximately 21 million coins.

More than 20 million have already been mined.

No one knows exactly how many remain accessible. Old coins that have not moved for years may be lost, but an inactive wallet is not necessarily an abandoned wallet.

Estimates frequently suggest that several million Bitcoin could be permanently inaccessible.

The exact number is uncertain.

The direction is not.

Some Bitcoin has been lost.

A large share is held by long-term investors.

Companies, funds, exchanges and custodians hold substantial positions.

Depending on how “liquid supply” is defined, only a fraction of mined Bitcoin appears readily available for active trading.

At the same time, new supply is predictable.

Following the latest halving, approximately 450 new BTC are mined per day.

After the next halving, that should fall to roughly 225 per day.

Those numbers do not guarantee that Bitcoin will become more valuable.

Scarcity alone does not create demand.

But they explain why I believe even a relatively small increase in global demand could have a disproportionate effect on an asset with limited new issuance and restricted active supply.

A falling market price does not change that structure.

But some events would.

1. I Would Sell If Bitcoin’s Rules Changed

Bitcoin’s fixed supply is not simply one attractive feature among many.

It is the foundation of my investment thesis.

The 21-million limit separates Bitcoin from monetary systems in which supply can be expanded when governments, central banks or political circumstances demand it.

It is why I have written so much about what owning even a relatively small Bitcoin position could mean in the future.

How Rare Will 0.1 Bitcoin Be in the Future?

Technically, Bitcoin’s code can be changed.

But changing some code is not the same as changing Bitcoin.

The network depends on miners, node operators, developers, exchanges and users accepting compatible rules.

Developers cannot simply decide to create another ten million Bitcoin and force every participant to accept the change.

Users are free to reject software that violates the rules they want to follow.

That social and economic resistance is part of Bitcoin’s protection.

But it should not be treated as magic.

If the network ever accepted a lasting change that made Bitcoin’s supply expandable, unpredictable or politically controlled, the asset I believed I owned would no longer exist in the same form.

At that point, holding simply because I had always held would make no sense.

I would not be selling because the price had fallen.

I would be selling because the asset had changed.

2. I Would Sell If Bitcoin Could No Longer Protect Ownership

Scarcity is only valuable if ownership can be protected and transferred.

A perfectly scarce digital asset is useless if the network cannot reliably determine who owns it, prevent double-spending or process valid transactions.

Bitcoin’s value depends on maintaining a secure, shared transaction history without requiring one central institution to control the ledger.

I would therefore reconsider my position if Bitcoin suffered a permanent structural failure such as:

• Repeated successful attacks on transaction finality

• Double-spending at meaningful scale

• A security failure the network could not credibly repair

• A collapse in the economic incentives protecting the chain

• Persistent censorship of valid transactions

• Loss of the practical ability to hold and transfer Bitcoin independently

A temporary technical problem would not necessarily be enough.

Neither would a theoretical attack described in a dramatic headline.

Complex systems experience bugs, disruption and attempted attacks.

The important question is whether the system can respond and continue performing its core function.

Mining economics are part of this discussion.

Block subsidies decline with every halving. Over time, transaction fees will need to provide a larger share of miner revenue.

That transition does not automatically make Bitcoin insecure.

But it is one of the long-term questions serious holders should watch.

If Bitcoin became extremely valuable while the economic incentives protecting the network became persistently inadequate, that mismatch could matter.

I would not sell because someone claimed Bitcoin’s security budget might become a problem decades from now.

I would sell if the evidence showed that the network could no longer protect the asset it claimed to secure.

The Institutional Paradox

The ability to control and transfer Bitcoin independently also matters for another reason.

Institutional adoption has strengthened Bitcoin in several ways.

Banks that once dismissed it now provide trading, custody and investment products.

Spot ETFs have made Bitcoin exposure easier for traditional investors.

Companies and funds hold significant amounts.

Each new institution creates another group with an economic interest in Bitcoin’s continued existence.

The Great Bitcoin U-Turn — When Banks Went From Denial to Adoption

But institutional adoption creates a paradox.

Bitcoin can become more widely owned while actual control becomes more concentrated.

Millions of investors may own ETF shares, while a much smaller number of custodians control the underlying Bitcoin.

That does not automatically damage the network.

The danger begins if independent ownership becomes practically impossible.

If most transactions can be censored.

If withdrawals into private custody are heavily restricted.

If a small coordinated group can determine which coins are acceptable.

If ordinary users can no longer verify or enforce the rules.

Bitcoin might still have the same name and ticker.

But it would no longer provide the same alternative to the traditional financial system.

I am not interested in owning a digitally scarce asset that functions only with permission from the institutions it was designed to operate without.

What About a Government Ban?

I have already explored the risk of governments restricting or banning Bitcoin.

The One Bitcoin Risk I Didn’t Want to Think About

Governments can regulate exchanges.

They can pressure banks.

They can tax transactions.

They can impose reporting requirements.

They can punish non-compliance.

What they cannot easily do is erase a decentralised network operating across many countries or locate every properly secured private key.

That is why a ban in one country would not automatically make me sell.

One government is not the world.

Policies change.

Courts intervene.

Administrations are replaced.

Industries lobby.

Voters react.

But saying “Bitcoin cannot be banned” can also become intellectually lazy.

A government does not need to destroy every node to make Bitcoin difficult to use.

It can attack the bridges between Bitcoin and the ordinary economy.

A durable and coordinated international system that made lawful Bitcoin ownership and transfer practically impossible would damage the investment thesis.

The network might remain technically alive.

But if ordinary law-abiding people could no longer acquire, hold, inherit or use Bitcoin across most major economies, its potential market would shrink significantly.

That situation belongs under my second exit condition:

Bitcoin would no longer provide reliable, practical and independent ownership.

3. I Would Sell If Demand Entered Permanent Structural Decline

Scarcity is not enough.

An asset can be perfectly scarce and still have little value if nobody wants it.

In an earlier article, I examined what might happen if just 1% of global wealth were allocated to Bitcoin.

Using an illustrative estimate of approximately $600 trillion in global wealth, 1% would represent $6 trillion.

What Happens If Just 1% of Global Wealth Flows Into Bitcoin?

Dividing that amount by the number of mined Bitcoin produced one theoretical value.

Dividing it by a smaller estimate of actively available Bitcoin produced a much higher value.

Those calculations were intended to illustrate the relationship between large capital pools and limited supply.

They were not precise price predictions.

Capital inflows do not translate into market capitalisation on a simple one-to-one basis. The effect depends on liquidity, available sellers and market conditions.

But the underlying principle still matters:

If demand expands while actively available supply remains limited, price can respond disproportionately.

The opposite is also true.

If demand permanently contracts, scarcity becomes less valuable.

I would therefore pay attention if several independent signals deteriorated together over many years:

• Users steadily abandoned the network

• Transaction demand declined across multiple market cycles

• Long-term capital consistently left Bitcoin

• Companies and institutions withdrew for structural rather than temporary reasons

• Development and infrastructure activity faded

• Liquidity moved permanently elsewhere

• Another asset took over Bitcoin’s monetary role

No single indicator would make the decision for me.

ETF outflows during a bear market would not be enough.

One year of falling prices would not be enough.

One hostile government would not be enough.

A failed exchange would not be enough.

Markets move in cycles.

A structural decline is different.

If security, usage, liquidity, development and long-term demand all deteriorated together — and continued deteriorating across several years — I would have to consider whether adoption had merely paused or had genuinely reversed.

Holding an asset because demand may return is reasonable.

Holding it after the evidence shows that demand has moved elsewhere is attachment.

What If Something Better Replaces Bitcoin?

Bitcoin was not the first attempt at digital money.

It succeeded because it combined several properties in a way earlier systems did not:

• Predictable scarcity

• Strong security

• Decentralised verification

• Permissionless transfer

• Global liquidity

• A network that has survived repeated attacks and market cycles

But believing Bitcoin is the strongest digital monetary asset today does not mean assuming it must remain so forever.

Thousands of cryptocurrencies can process more transactions per second.

Many have more features.

Some use less energy.

Some offer staking, smart contracts or complex financial applications.

That does not automatically make them better money.

Money depends on credibility, security, liquidity, predictability and network effects.

For another asset to replace Bitcoin in my thesis, it would need more than better technology.

It would need to demonstrate:

• Comparable or stronger monetary credibility

• Strong decentralisation

• Proven security over many years

• Deep global liquidity

• Broad and durable adoption

• A compelling reason for existing Bitcoin holders to migrate

• No hidden dependence on a central authority

It would need to achieve those things in reality, not in a white paper.

If a stronger asset eventually took over Bitcoin’s monetary role, Bitcoin demand would probably enter the structural decline described above.

Refusing to reconsider at that point would not be conviction.

It would be loyalty to a ticker.

I own Bitcoin because of what it does, not because I need Bitcoin specifically to win.

4. I Would Sell Some Bitcoin If My Family Had a Better Use for It

Not every sale means the investment thesis has failed.

There are two fundamentally different reasons to sell:

1. The asset has changed.

2. Life has changed.

If my family faced an important need, selling some Bitcoin could be rational even if I remained convinced by its long-term potential.

A home, education, health, security or financial independence can have more real value than maintaining the largest possible balance in a wallet.

Money is a tool.

Bitcoin is also a tool.

An asset held forever without improving anyone’s life risks becoming an object of worship rather than wealth.

I am building part of my Bitcoin position with my children’s future in mind.

That does not mean they must hold every satoshi forever.

If Bitcoin eventually helps them obtain an education, buy a home, create security or gain choices I did not have at their age, it may have fulfilled its purpose.

That kind of sale would not prove that buying Bitcoin was a mistake.

It might prove the opposite.

The One Sale I Never Want to Make

There is another kind of sale that does not belong in my exit framework:

Forced liquidation.

I have previously described how I have used WBTC as collateral on Aave, borrowed USDC and kept my loan-to-value ratio around 30–35%.

I Never Sell My Bitcoin Anymore — I Borrow Against It and Get Paid Instead

That structure creates liquidity while maintaining Bitcoin price exposure.

But it introduces additional risks.

WBTC is a wrapped representation of Bitcoin, not native BTC. It adds custody and smart-contract risk. Aave adds protocol, parameter and liquidation risk.

If Bitcoin falls far enough and the position is not managed correctly, the collateral can be liquidated.

That is technically a sale.

But it is not a decision.

It is a forced exit at precisely the moment I may least want to sell.

Borrowing against Bitcoin does not eliminate selling risk.

It can transform voluntary selling into involuntary liquidation.

That is why I keep leverage conservative and monitor the position.

If I ever became unable or unwilling to manage those risks, reducing the debt would matter more than defending the headline of an old article.

My Four Bitcoin Exit Questions

My decision can now be reduced to four questions:

1. Are Bitcoin’s monetary rules still credible?

Is the limited and predictable supply still economically enforced?

2. Can Bitcoin still protect and transfer ownership?

Does the network remain secure, censorship-resistant and usable without permission from a small group of institutions?

3. Is long-term demand still developing?

Not this month or this cycle, but across multiple years.

4. Does my family have a more valuable use for the capital?

Has Bitcoin reached the point where using some of it would improve the life it was intended to support?

If the answers to the first three remain yes, a falling price alone is not a reason for me to sell.

If one becomes a lasting no, the thesis deserves a serious review.

If several become no simultaneously, holding out of habit would be irresponsible.

The fourth question is different.

It is not about Bitcoin failing.

It is about Bitcoin succeeding in its role as stored value.

The Difference Between Conviction and Faith

Conviction is not refusing to change your mind.

Conviction means understanding why you hold a position strongly enough to recognise when that reason no longer exists.

Faith begins where evidence stops mattering.

I do not want my Bitcoin position to depend on faith.

I want it to depend on observable properties:

• Scarcity

• Security

• Independent ownership

• Liquidity

• Adoption

Those properties are stronger today than they were when Bitcoin was a small experiment discussed by a few enthusiasts.

Banks that once dismissed it now sell access to it.

Spot ETFs connect it to traditional portfolios.

Public companies hold it.

Long-term investors remove coins from active circulation.

New issuance continues to decline.

None of this guarantees success.

But it explains why I continue to own Bitcoin.

It also tells me what I need to watch.

The Line That Would Make Me Sell

So what would actually make me sell my Bitcoin?

Not fear.

Not a crash.

Not a prediction.

Not one hostile government.

Not a faster cryptocurrency.

Not a bad year.

I would sell if Bitcoin stopped being the asset I believed I had purchased.

If its monetary rules became unreliable.

If the network could no longer protect independent ownership.

If global demand entered a permanent structural decline.

I might also sell part of it because my family needed the value more than I needed the position.

That would not be a failure.

The failure would be holding an asset after the thesis had broken simply because I once wrote that I would never sell.

I still believe Bitcoin offers an asymmetric opportunity.

The amount of capital I risk is defined.

The potential upside is not.

That is why I continue to accumulate.

But the strongest investment decision is not promising never to sell.

It is knowing exactly why you own something —

and being honest enough to recognise if that reason disappears.

This article reflects my personal experience and investment framework. It is not financial, legal, tax or security advice. Bitcoin, DeFi and crypto-related borrowing involve significant risks, including the possible loss of capital.

I’m Writing a Book About Bitcoin

I’m currently writing The 0.1 Bitcoin Legacy — a practical, no-hype guide to building, protecting and passing on a meaningful Bitcoin position to the next generation.

Join the Early Reader List →

No fixed publication date. No spam. Unsubscribe at any time.