Points of Focus

• Eli Ben-Sasson says Bitcoin’s hard cap should change.
• Lost private keys are central to his argument.
• Critics see the 21 million cap as Bitcoin’s core promise.

StarkWare CEO Eli Ben-Sasson has reignited a controversial topic in Bitcoin: whether or not its 21 million supply cap should change. 

In a July 7 X post, Ben-Sasson argued that Bitcoin’s current hard cap “doesn’t make sense” because users lose their private keys over time. Their holdings lost forever. He suggested replacing the fixed supply limit with an annual issuance rate of around 4%. A set rate, Ben-Sasson notes, would keep Bitcoin’s future predictable.

The importance of lost Bitcoin

Ben-Sasson’s argument focuses on the main problem with digital scarcity: that lost Bitcoin does not disappear from the blockchain but rather becomes permanently inaccessible. Digital asset infrastructure company BitGo estimated in August 2025 that between 2.3 million and 4 million Bitcoin, or around 11% to 18% of the asset’s fixed supply, may be permanently lost. A number that can only have gone up since then.

Of course, this number is hard to prove because dormant wallets may still be controlled by long-term holders, but regardless, slumbering holdings shrink Bitcoin’s usable supply. If enough coins become unreachable over decades, Bitcoin’s fixed cap will only be less useful, Ben-Sasson says. In his view, Bitcoin could offset permanently lost coins by allowing limited annual issuance, while still keeping inflation in check.

Bitcoin’s security budget

Now, Bitcoin miners are currently paid in a mix of existing and newly issued Bitcoin, not by redistributing lost or dormant assets. Bitcoin’s developer documentation states that the subsidy began at 50 Bitcoin and halves every 210,000 blocks, making newly issued BTC a shrinking part of that revenue over time. Bitcoin’s subsidy will decline. And the Bitcoin network is expected to depend more heavily on transaction fees to pay miners.

Ben-Sasson argues that lost coins could keep shrinking Bitcoin’s usable supply, while the declining block subsidy affects how miners will be paid as new issuance shrinks.

Why changing the cap would be difficult

For Bitcoin supporters, changing the cap would cut into the network’s main social contract. That 21 million limit is a core part of the digital scarcity narrative. Any inflation proposal will likely face resistance from nodes, miners, developers, and holders.

There is also the issue of practicality. Bitcoin’s monetary policy cannot be changed by a single entity, nor even a small group of them. It would require agreement across the network, which is likely to result in a rejected proposal or even a fork, rather than a majority yes.

It’s more likely that Ben-Sasson’s argument will become a part of the digital scarcity discussion instead of meaningful change, but lost coins are still a real issue. Miner incentives will continue to shift, and miner budgets will become harder to ignore as block rewards fall. If the situation becomes dire, will Bitcoin’s community vote to alter the cap? Hard to say for now.