> According to this explanation those super powerful individuals "sell" Bitcoins for fiat in order to pay the energy (electricity) they use in order to mine another currency. It is only possible because Bitcoin is not the sole currency.
Doesn't it? What changes if you take out the fiat intermediary and buy energy (a fungible, near-universal production input and end-consumer product in one) directly and the competition is about a commodity that is not a currency?
The Bitcoin "value" (the buying power it confers) will be mainly determined by bulk transactions and by factors of high-inertia (changing them radically and fast is impossible), not by investors. One of such last factors is the cost of energy production and storage, another is the efficiency of mining equipment and the associated willing to amortize it. Therefore it will be much more stable, and it seems to be the main problem at hand.
Doesn't it? What changes if you take out the fiat intermediary and buy energy (a fungible, near-universal production input and end-consumer product in one) directly and the competition is about a commodity that is not a currency?