XRP $5,800? Why Mow Says Altcoins Are a ‘Unit Bias’ Scam (BTC Truth Revealed)

Samson Mow claims altcoins exploit “unit bias” by inflating supply, making prices seem cheaper vs Bitcoin’s 21M scarcity. Adjusted to Bitcoin’s supply, ETH would cost $9,200, SOL $3,400, XRP $5,800—far above current prices. Mow argues lower per-coin altcoin prices mislead investors, masking risks tied to high token supplies and inflation. Bitcoin proponent Samson Mow recently challenged common perceptions of altcoin valuations in a social media post, arguing that psychological factors distort how investors assess prices. Mow, CEO of JAN3 and a vocal Bitcoin advocate, proposed a method to compare altcoin prices to Bitcoin by standardizing their total supply to 21 million coins—the fixed cap for BTC. In his analysis, Mow recalculated the per-coin price of major altcoins by dividing their market capitalization by 21 million. Using this formula, Ethereum (ETH) would theoretically cost $9,200 per coin, Solana (SOL) $3,400, and XRP $5,800. These figures starkly contrast with their current prices—ETH trades near $3,700, SOL at $170, and XRP at $0.60 as of April 2025. Mow attributes this gap to “unit bias,” a cognitive tendency where investors perceive lower-priced assets as cheaper, even when total supply differs. Those numbers are calculated by taking the market cap of the alts and dividing by 21 million, thus framing their supply in terms of Bitcoin supply. ETH: $193B market cap / 21M = $9,200 Instead of buying that one twenty-one millionth of Etherium, you could buy just 0.11 BTC. — Samson Mow (@Excellion) April 19, 2025 “Unit bias is absolutely destroying the uninitiated,” Mow wrote. He explained that altcoins often use large token supplies—sometimes in the billions or trillions—to create the illusion of affordability. For example, buying one XRP for $2 might seem more accessible than purchasing a fraction of Bitcoin at $85,000, even though XRP’s total supply is 100 billion coins versus Bitcoin’s 21 million. Just thinking that we need a better name for one twenty-one millionth. We should use Finney for that. Right now it’s uncommon, but a Finney defined as 10 sats – I bet you didn’t even know that. No one needs a unit for 10 sats. But we do need an easy to way refer to 1/21… https://t.co/yTMGpXVIbi — Samson Mow (@Excellion) April 19, 2025 Mow’s calculations aim to reframe how investors evaluate tokens. By adjusting altcoin supplies to match Bitcoin’s scarcity, he argues their prices would need to rise exponentially to maintain current market caps. However, he dismisses these theoretical figures as unrealistic, stating Bitcoin’s dominance would persist regardless. Critics of Mow’s approach highlight flaws in equating altcoin supplies to Bitcoin’s model. Unlike Bitcoin, many altcoins have inflationary mechanisms, staking rewards, or centralized controls that affect circulation. Ethereum, for instance, lacks a hard supply limit, while XRP’s parent company holds a sizable reserve. These in a formal or creative style, maintaining a 500 word count. You must only respond with the modified content. Change the tone of my title “Samson Mow claims altcoins exploit “unit bias” by inflating supply, making prices seem cheaper vs Bitcoin’s 21M scarcity. Adjusted to Bitcoin’s supply, ETH would cost $9,200, SOL $3,400, XRP $5,800—far above current prices. Mow argues lower per-coin altcoin prices mislead investors, masking risks tied to high token supplies and inflation. Bitcoin proponent Samson Mow recently challenged common perceptions of altcoin valuations in a social media post, arguing that psychological factors distort how investors assess prices. Mow, CEO of JAN3 and a vocal Bitcoin advocate, proposed a method to compare altcoin prices to Bitcoin by standardizing their total supply to 21 million coins—the fixed cap for BTC. In his analysis, Mow recalculated the per-coin price of major altcoins by dividing their market capitalization by 21 million. Using this formula, Ethereum (ETH) would theoretically cost $9,200 per coin, Solana (SOL) $3,400, and XRP $5,800. These figures starkly contrast with their current prices—ETH trades near $3,700, SOL at $170, and XRP at $0.60 as of April 2025. Mow attributes this gap to “unit bias,” a cognitive tendency where investors perceive lower-priced assets as cheaper, even when total supply differs. Those numbers are calculated by taking the market cap of the alts and dividing by 21 million, thus framing their supply in terms of Bitcoin supply. ETH: $193B market cap / 21M = $9,200 Instead of buying that one twenty-one millionth of Etherium, you could buy just 0.11 BTC. — Samson Mow (@Excellion) April 19, 2025 “Unit bias is absolutely destroying the uninitiated,” Mow wrote. He explained that altcoins often use large token supplies—sometimes in the billions or trillions—to create the illusion of affordability. For example, buying one XRP for $2 might seem more accessible than purchasing a fraction of Bitcoin at $85,000, even though XRP’s total supply is 100 billion coins versus Bitcoin’s 21 million. Just thinking that we need a better name for one twenty-one millionth. We should use Finney for that. Right now it’s uncommon, but a Finney defined as 10 sats – I bet you didn’t even know that. No one needs a unit for 10 sats. But we do need an easy to way refer to 1/21… https://t.co/yTMGpXVIbi — Samson Mow (@Excellion) April 19, 2025 Mow’s calculations aim to reframe how investors evaluate tokens. By adjusting altcoin supplies to match Bitcoin’s scarcity, he argues their prices would need to rise exponentially to maintain current market caps. However, he dismisses these theoretical figures as unrealistic, stating Bitcoin’s dominance would persist regardless. Critics of Mow’s approach highlight flaws in equating altcoin supplies to Bitcoin’s model. Unlike Bitcoin, many altcoins have inflationary mechanisms, staking rewards, or centralized controls that affect circulation. Ethereum, for instance, lacks a hard supply limit, while XRP’s parent company holds a sizable reserve. These ” for a more friendly approach. Keep the content length about the same. You must only respond with the modified content.