Assuming AI and robotics eventually take over the majority of production and services, including physical labor and coordination through autonomous agent systems, do you see a structural risk to the traditional wage → income → purchasing power → access loop?
If human labor becomes economically marginal, but production capacity remains high, does that destabilize the price discovery mechanism that markets rely on?
In that scenario, income would no longer be broadly earned through labor participation. So how would access to goods be mediated? Would it require large-scale redistribution mechanisms like universal basic income, or even more centralized allocation systems?
And do you see any long-term risk that programmable money (CBDCs) tied to carbon credits, travel quotas, or consumption thresholds, could shift allocation from market-based price signals to administratively defined rules?
In other words, could extreme automation unintentionally push economies toward a kind of post-scarcity collectivism, not ideologically driven, but structurally driven by technology?
How do you think about that possibility?

Well put. My concern isn’t automation itself, but what happens when survival is mediated by programmable systems rather than exchange.
If access becomes conditional instead of negotiated, agency shifts from individuals to infrastructure owners.
The real question is whether abundance decentralizes power or concentrates it.

They are not even hiding their intentions anymore...

A symptom of late-stage monetary distortion.

Imagine a technologically advanced society in which AI and robotics take over a large share of production, from goods to services. As automation becomes more efficient and widespread, the marginal cost of producing many goods could approach zero. At the same time, human labor would become increasingly irrelevant in large parts of the economy.
In such a world, traditional price mechanisms could weaken significantly. If goods are abundant and production costs are minimal, market prices may no longer function as they do today. Money itself might lose part of its meaning, at least for everyday necessities.
I foresee a scenario in which universal basic income is implemented globally, with governments taking on a stronger role in resource distribution to maintain stability and prevent social unrest. However, truly scarce assets such as prime real estate, unique works of art and BITCOIN would likely become extremely expensive and remain concentrated in the hands of elites.
In other words, society could move toward a system that resembles a form of post-scarcity communism.

I'm orders of magnitude past that list! 🤣

The forbidden hole

Planet McPlanetface

Bitcoin only makes sense when seen as the monetary reference point. Fiat is a poor measuring stick, constantly changing and politically manipulated. Optimizing for more of it misses the point. Bitcoin isn’t a way to accumulate fiat, it’s a way out of a broken unit of account.

I agree with all of this. However, it only impacts you if fia,lt, specifically the dollar in this case, remains your center of gravity. Bitcoin isn't broken, it actually exposes how disruptive, corrupt, and artificial fiat systems can be.
Once you break free from fiat constraints, this becomes obvious. The goal isn’t to fix or reform the fiat system, but to replace it entirely.
That’s the endgame, and it’s why NGU doesn’t matter in the long run.
What matters is that people realize they’re being played and choose to opt out of the system, one person at a time, regardless of the fiat price.

Free Bitcoin??? Heck yeah!