In 2140, when the last Bitcoin 'breaks ground' from the blockchain, the global cap of 21 million coins will be completely locked. This cryptocurrency myth that has run for 115 years will face its 'life-and-death judgment.' The 'block reward' that supports miners in safeguarding the network will be completely cut off, and Bitcoin must shift from 'relying on new coin dividends' to 'relying on trading for sustenance.' This transformation spanning a century is the ultimate test of technological resilience and a life-and-death gamble of decentralized belief.
Transaction fees take over: A thrilling leap from the 'subsidy era' to 'self-sufficiency'
Since Satoshi Nakamoto laid the first cornerstone of the blockchain, the block reward has acted as Bitcoin's 'survival blood transfusion pump'—it not only motivates miners to verify transactions and maintain the ledger but also solidifies the network's decentralized security wall with real money. But on the day it 'mines out' in 2140, this 'transfusion pump' will permanently shut down, and transaction fees must become the new 'heart' to continuously supply blood to the network.
"The day the block reward disappears, the lifeline of network security will be held in the hands of block space demand." Gracie Lin, CEO of OKX in Singapore, stated like a thunderbolt. The industry is betting: if Bitcoin can grow from a 'niche investment' to 'global financial infrastructure,' high-value transactions will naturally generate a sufficient fee market. Just like the invaluable financial core area, when Bitcoin becomes an irreplaceable digital necessity, the 'toll fee' for each transaction might support miners' livelihoods.
Institutional entry is seen as the 'trump card' in this gamble. When companies incorporate Bitcoin into cross-border payments and large settlements, and when central bank digital currencies frequently 'interact' with Bitcoin, a stable flow of high-value transactions may transform the fee market from 'relying on luck' to 'steady streams.' 'Institutional trading acts like a stabilizer for the fee market, enabling it to withstand fluctuations,' Sammi Li, co-founder of JuCoin, asserts.
Second-layer protocol: Is it a 'lifeline' or a 'stalling tactic'?
Faced with the potential skyrocketing of transaction fees, the second-layer protocol is being hailed as the 'key to breaking the deadlock.' Technologies represented by the Lightning Network move small, high-frequency transactions off the main chain, reducing fees and speeding up daily payments while also feeding back into the main chain—the opening and closing of lightning channels still require the main chain's 'seal,' and new playstyles are giving rise to more high-value transactions on the main chain.
"The second layer is the magic that balances 'capacity expansion' and 'price protection.'" Lior Aizik, CEO of XBO, hit the nail on the head. It allows Bitcoin to serve both as a 'pocket change jar' (for small payments) and a 'vault safe' (for large transactions), combined with the continuous liquidity injected by exchanges. This 'main chain + second layer' combo is seen as a core weapon to tackle the 'post-reward era.' But the question is: can this 'lifeline' truly bear the heavy burden a century later?
Deadly trap: The dual strangulation of computational power collapse and decentralization loss
Optimists bet on a smooth future, but hidden concerns have already buried a 'time bomb.' The most direct threat is a 'runaway wave' of miners: if transaction fees can't rise, miner profits will plummet, and some computational power may simply 'shut down.' Gracie Lin warns: 'After the safety budget is eroded, the worst-case scenario could see 20%-30% of computational power going offline collectively, similar to past power avalanches that occurred due to profit crashes.' As computational power decreases, the network's resistance to attacks will collapse, and hackers may take the opportunity to 'upend the table.'
Even more terrifying is the collapse of decentralized 'belief.' Small miners can't withstand low-profit cycles and can only pack up and leave, leading to accelerated concentration of computational power among a few mining giants. 'If fees cannot support small miners, Bitcoin will shift from being 'guarded by everyone' to 'controlled by a few,' which amounts to uprooting its foundation,' Lior Aizik pointedly states. Once decentralization is lost, Bitcoin's banner of 'censorship-resistant value storage' will shatter, and investors and businesses will vote with their feet, transforming it from a 'new force in finance' into a 'museum specimen.'
A century of preparation: Is there not much time left for Bitcoin?
Fortunately, from now until 2140, Bitcoin has a 'buffer period' of 115 years. This is enough time for the community to trial and error, iterate, and build a path, to gather enough momentum for this 'life-or-death transformation.' Industry leaders are betting that Bitcoin's underlying resilience, community enthusiasm, and technological iteration will allow it to get through this hurdle.
"As long as Bitcoin has value in 2140, economic laws will find a way." Sammi Li's optimism is not unfounded. What the community needs to do is to sharpen 'three knives' over the century: optimize the transaction fee mechanism, upgrade the second-layer protocol, and find new incentives for miners. Ensuring that when rewards are cut off, the network can still resist attacks while maintaining decentralization.
After all, this century-long transformation is not just a technical issue; it is more of a 'crowdfunding of beliefs.' Whether Bitcoin can smoothly jump from 'inflation issuance' into the 'fee-driven' pool, and whether it can maintain its 'decentralized' original intention under new rules, depends entirely on whether the community can, over a century, turn the 'survival gamble' into 'inevitable victory.' The day in 2140 will ultimately reveal the answer.
