Bitcoin’s most interesting number isn’t $63K. It’s 21 million. There are already more millionaires globally than there will ever be Bitcoin. And the gap gets even tighter when you account for coins that are lost, permanently illiquid, or held by long-term holders. This week showed something else: $BTC ETFs saw $389.7M in weekly outflows, while Solana ETFs attracted $10.26M. Even with that gap, Bitcoin’s flow still dwarfs Solana’s. That looks more like capital rotation within crypto than abandonment of the asset class. And that makes Bitcoin’s supply debate even more interesting. Peter Todd raises the security question: will transaction fees alone sustain miners once the block subsidy disappears? Adam Back counters that Bitcoin’s fixed supply is fundamental to its value proposition. But both arguments point toward the same question: What makes Bitcoin valuable when new supply approaches zero? CZ’s millionaire comparison highlights the demand side. Saylor’s “deep freeze” thesis highlights the store-of-value side. ETF flows show where institutional capital is positioning today. Put them together and the bigger picture becomes clear: Bitcoin is becoming an asset institutions can no longer ignore, they have to decide whether they need exposure. And with a fixed maximum supply, demand growth doesn’t create more Bitcoin. It creates competition for the Bitcoin that already exists. Bitcoin was never designed around everyone owning a whole coin. The real race is for a piece of the 21 million. Are you positioning for your piece, or waiting for a better entry?