The growing debate online about whether Bitcoin had the “fairest launch in history” has taken a new turn after comments by Ripple’s chief technology officer David Schwartz sparked controversy across the crypto community.
The debate began after a widely shared social media post claimed that Bitcoin’s launch was uniquely fair and impossible to replicate. Critics quickly pushed back, arguing that early miners, including insiders close to the project’s creation, had amassed much of the initial supply before public awareness grew.
Schwartz says the fairness debate is based on a ‘false premise’
In response to this argument, Schwartz argued that many arguments about launch fairness are based on false assumptions. He said it is not inherently unfair for network creators to retain some of the value they create, especially when early participants face significant uncertainty and risk.
Schwartz also said early investors aren’t necessarily guaranteed an advantage. He said early participation came with high risks, and many early adopters weren’t sure if the project would survive at all. As adoption increases and the technology becomes more widely known, the risks have decreased, but the opportunity to participate remains open to the public.
Additionally, he said hindsight often gives the impression that early participants had a huge advantage, when in reality the risk-adjusted benefits only become clearer years later as the ecosystem matures.
Comparison with Ethereum accelerates further discussion
Some analysts participating in the online discussion compared Bitcoin’s early mining phase to the pre-public sale structure used by Ethereum, arguing that both networks allocate roughly similar portions of supply to bootstrap development. Proponents of this view argue that the idea that Bitcoin will have a uniquely “perfect” or “immaculate” launch may be overstated.
However, critics argue that Bitcoin’s lack of a formal pre-sale still distinguishes it from subsequent blockchain launches, leaving the fairness debate unresolved.
“Opportunities have improved over time,” Schwartz adds.
In a follow-up comment shared online, Schwartz said the opportunities to participate in Bitcoin weren’t that bad early on. Rather, they argued that investment opportunities would gradually improve as the risk of overall project failure decreased and the chances of long-term success became clearer.
He added that the debate has changed mainly since 2018, making it harder for late entrants to argue that they are not at a disadvantage compared to early entrants. By that stage, Bitcoin had already matured considerably and the benefits of early participation became more obvious.
