Key Takeaways
- Bitcoin developer Peter Todd has revived his argument for tail emissions, which would keep issuing a small amount of BTC after the current block subsidy eventually disappears.
- Todd compared the model with gold, arguing that permanent low-level issuance could support miners without necessarily producing runaway inflation.
- Any attempt to move Bitcoin beyond its 21 million cap would require a hard fork and broad support from users, miners and other network participants.
Bitcoin’s 21 million supply cap, one of the cryptocurrency’s most closely guarded monetary rules, is facing a fresh challenge from longtime Bitcoin developer Peter Todd.
A clip circulating on X over the weekend showed Todd defending tail emissions, a system under which miners would continue receiving newly created BTC indefinitely rather than relying entirely on transaction fees once Bitcoin’s scheduled block subsidy runs out.
“If BTC had tail emissions to begin with, no one would care,” Todd said, adding that economically, the setup would be “similar to gold.”
The comments come from Todd’s July 23 presentation, Tail Emissions and Demurrage, at Bitcoin++ Toronto. The published recording puts an argument Todd has made for years back into Bitcoin’s supply debate.
Why Todd Wants Bitcoin to Keep Issuing BTC
Under Bitcoin’s existing rules, miners earn newly issued BTC plus transaction fees. The block subsidy falls by half every 210,000 blocks, roughly every four years, and issuance is designed to stop once the total supply approaches 21 million BTC.
That eventually leaves transaction fees carrying Bitcoin’s entire security budget.
Todd has questioned whether a fee-only model will provide miners with sufficiently reliable revenue. In a 2022 paper, he pointed to research suggesting block generation could become unstable when miners depend exclusively on transaction fees.
Tail emissions would instead maintain a fixed reward for each block.
Todd also argues that permanent issuance does not automatically mean the usable Bitcoin supply must expand forever. Coins are continuously lost through forgotten passwords, destroyed keys and owners dying without passing on access.
His model suggests that, over a long enough period, the rate of new issuance could eventually balance the rate at which coins permanently disappear. Supply would then approach an equilibrium rather than rising without limit.
The problem is that nobody knows Bitcoin’s actual long-term coin-loss rate. Todd himself acknowledged that uncertainty in his original analysis.
Why Compare Bitcoin With Gold?
The gold comparison cuts into one of Bitcoin’s oldest selling points.
Gold is scarce, but it does not have a fixed numerical supply cap. Miners continue adding new gold every year. World Gold Council data shows nearly 220,000 tonnes of above-ground gold existed at the end of 2025, while mines added another 3,672 tonnes during that year.
Todd’s argument is that Bitcoin could operate similarly: maintain scarcity while allowing a small flow of new supply to fund the network securing it.
For Bitcoin holders, however, abandoning 21 million would remove a feature that gold itself cannot offer: a predetermined maximum supply.
Bitcoin.org states that issuance is designed to halt at 21 million, after which miners are expected to depend on transaction fees.
Could Bitcoin Actually Abandon the 21M Cap?
Todd has already acknowledged the biggest obstacle.
Adding tail emissions would require a hard fork, meaning existing nodes would reject blocks created under the new monetary rules unless their operators chose to upgrade. Todd wrote that convincing enough of the Bitcoin community to accept such a change could be extremely difficult.
Metaplanet CEO Simon Gerovich argued that Bitcoin’s fixed supply becomes more valuable as the global money supply continues to expand.
Gerovich pointed to global M2 reaching a new all-time high of roughly $121 trillion, even as Bitcoin’s price has decoupled from global liquidity trends over the past year. For him, the short-term divergence does not weaken Bitcoin’s monetary case because its underlying supply schedule remains unchanged.
“The printing never stopped,” Gerovich wrote, adding that while the money supply can continue expanding, “21 million will always be 21 million.”
His argument centers on Bitcoin’s scarcity rather than its immediate price response to liquidity. Governments and central banks can increase the supply of fiat currency, while Bitcoin’s issuance continues to decline under its programmed halving schedule and ultimately approaches its 21 million cap.
“When the money supply expands forever, you hold the asset that can’t,” Gerovich said. “That’s why we hold hard money.”
The comments also offer a counterpoint to Peter Todd’s tail-emission idea, which would allow a small amount of new Bitcoin to continue being issued beyond the existing supply schedule. Gerovich’s argument instead rests on preserving absolute scarcity as one of Bitcoin’s defining monetary properties.
There is also little urgency in practical terms. Bitcoin’s subsidy declines gradually, with the final issuance expected only around 2140.
For now, the debate is less about an imminent Bitcoin fork and more about a question the network will eventually have to answer: is absolute scarcity more valuable than guaranteeing miners a permanent source of new BTC?
Top Trending Crypto Articles
The information provided in this article is for informational purposes only. It is not intended to be, nor should it be construed as, financial advice. We do not make any warranties regarding the completeness, reliability, or accuracy of this information. All investments involve risk, and past performance does not guarantee future results. We recommend consulting a financial advisor before making any investment decisions.
Dr. Guneet Kaur is a senior editor at CCN.com and a Science Fellow at Exponential Science. She is a fintech and blockchain expert with extensive experience in digital finance education, blockchain ecosystems, and cryptocurrency markets. She has worked with global media such as Cointelegraph, as well as education and blockchain platforms, to design and lead strategic content and learning initiatives. As an educator and assessor for top-tier executive programs, she bridges real-world fintech trends with academic insight.
Dr. Kaur is also a published researcher and peer reviewer across fintech and data science journals, including Financial Innovation Journal and International Journal of Big Data Intelligence and Applications. Her work spans data-driven analysis, Web3 innovation, and technical content development. With a strong foundation in both industry and academia, she translates complex financial technologies into practical applications, empowering learners, professionals, and institutions across the rapidly evolving digital finance landscape.
