Actually, I got @Frances_Coppola's point now.
-> "subdivision eliminates scarcity" <-
yes, in some way this really is true - if you define scarcity as a high required effort and/or cost to acquire ANY amount of BTC. 1/14

Due to the high (and in the future maybe even higher) divisibility, it will be possible for everyone to acquire some fraction of a BTC, even if it went to $1m+. However, we should define scarcity as the required effort and/or cost to acquire x BTC and see how this develops. 2/14

For BTC, there is a unique inverse correlation of adoption and amount of BTC needed to store/transfer a specific fiat currency value. The more adoption has taken place, the less BTC will be needed to store/transfer a constant value of USD, since the BTC/USD value will go up. 3/14

So, in fact BTC will never be scarce in a traditional sense. Even if major fractions were lost, the market would just react to make up for the loss of coins. Market price, market capitalization and therefore liquidity in fiat currency would go up again. 4/14

In fact, BTC would work as good with 1 BTC supply as with 21m BTC supply. If a major fraction of BTC is lost and/or the market price has risen so that the current divisibility is not sufficient anymore, a new divisibility can be introduced. 5/14

This is actually good for BTC. The fee market would benefit from it and Bitcoin would remain accessible for smaller market participants and the use for small fiat volume transactions would remain possible. 6/14

Now, let's define scarcity as effort and/or cost to acquire a constant amount of BTC and see how this trend evolves within time. History has shown that a constant amount of BTC has become indeed more scarce with the market price having increased and the emission decreased. 7/14

Due to the mentioned inverse correlation of adoption and needed amount of BTC for storing/transacting a specific value x, long-term holders have been significantly rewarded. The scarcity of a constant amount of BTC is definitely increasing. 8/14

The term scarcity cannot be applied to Bitcoin as it can be applied to gold or other physical assets where a minimum amount is needed to serve a specific purpose. In case of Bitcoin, 1 BTC at $30k has the same utility as 0.1 BTC at $300k - storing/transacting $30k value. 9/14

There is no cut-off in this system, it will still work the same at 100x value and 1/100th the required amount of Bitcoin. So if we apply the term scarcity to Bitcoin in a traditional sense, it would be not scarce at all. Less and less BTC will be required for the same use. 10/14

Due to the market price increasing as a result of lost coins and possibility of higher divisibility, Bitcoin will never be scarce in general - and this is exactly how it is supposed to be - a store of value and/or medium of exchange accessible for everyone and anyone. 11/14

However, the scarcity of a constant amount of Bitcoin has only ever increased within the past and can be assumed to increase further in the long term, since the emission is ever decreasing and market price going up as a result of adoption and use. 12/14

In the Bitcoin system, every satoshi is equal and so are any fractions that add up to a constant amount of BTC. However, it cannot be said that 1 satoshi has got the same utility as 1 BTC. The utility is determined by the market price. 13/14

Finally, the general scarcity of Bitcoin lies within the finite maximum supply. With adoption and price increasing, the utility per satoshi can be expected to increase further. Undefined fractions of Bitcoin will never be scarce, which is a mandatory feature - not a flaw. 14/14