Updated on:12/10/2025 04:44 PM 
The recent comments from Jamie Dimon, Chief Executive Officer of JPMorgan, during his CNBC interview at the Davos 2024 economic forum on January 17 have reignited discussions about the fundamental principles of Bitcoin (BTC). Unlike previous critiques focused on volatility or regulatory concerns, Dimon presented an unconventional theory suggesting that Bitcoin's supply could potentially be modified or even "erased" entirely.
During the discussion, Dimon posited that once Bitcoin reaches its maximum supply, the cryptocurrency might simply disappear. This assertion stands in stark contrast to the well-established understanding of Bitcoin's economic model. The JPMorgan CEO elaborated:
Dimon further challenged another cornerstone of Bitcoin's design by suggesting there's no guarantee that the issuance of new bitcoins will cease once the circulating supply reaches the predetermined 21 million BTC mark. His comments included:
Joe Kernen, host of CNBC's Squawk Box and one of Dimon's fellow panelists, clarified the timeline for Bitcoin's mining process, noting that the last Bitcoin is not expected to be mined until approximately the year 2140, largely due to the progressive mining difficulty adjustments built into the protocol. Kernen drew parallels between Bitcoin and traditional commodities like gold, to which Dimon responded, "You may be right... [but] I don't own gold either."
The response to Dimon's statements across social media platforms has been substantial, with critics pointing out both the factual inaccuracies in his theories and his mispronunciation of "Satoshi Nakamoto" as "Satashi"—a detail that has further diminished the credibility of his assessment among cryptocurrency enthusiasts.
Dimon's theories overlook several critical aspects of how Bitcoin's blockchain operates. Unlike traditional financial systems, Bitcoin's protocol was designed with specific immutability features that prevent unilateral changes to its core parameters.
The 21 million Bitcoin supply limit is not merely a suggestion but a hard-coded feature in Bitcoin's underlying software. Any modification to this fundamental rule would require consensus among the global network of miners, who have significant economic incentives to maintain the current supply schedule. Altering this rule without overwhelming consensus would risk creating a chain split, similar to what occurred with Bitcoin Cash (BCH) in 2017, which resulted in a separate blockchain rather than a modification of the original Bitcoin protocol.
Regarding the possibility of Bitcoin's supply being "erased," this would theoretically only occur if all Bitcoin holders collectively decided to send their assets to unspendable addresses—a scenario that is both practically impossible and economically irrational. While portions of Bitcoin's supply have indeed been sent to such "burn" addresses over the years, this practice has the opposite effect of what Dimon suggests—it reduces circulating supply and typically increases the value of remaining Bitcoin.
The broader cryptocurrency community has consistently emphasized that Bitcoin's value proposition is partly derived from its predictable, finite supply—a feature that distinguishes it from traditional fiat currencies which can be subject to unlimited expansion through monetary policy decisions.
