Thanks [@soemoekyaw](/user/profile/soemoekyaw) for putting this up. Its a article by Coinmetrics and "Crytpotwitters" Nic Carter. It attempts to discuss the perennial concerns over how does bitcoin fund its security once the block subsidies (Coins awarded to miners) decrease over subsequent halvenings and eventually disappear in 2140 (IIRC.) Firstly he did skirt round the main concern of whether transaction fees will be able to supplant the block subsidy in the future by saying he was not going to try and discuss what transaction fees will look like in the future (will they be enough basically), but he did indicate that he thought they would be. Its probably a good issue to skirt around as it is too hard to predict what transactions fees will look like. Currently transaction fees are set up to run at high levels whenever transaction levels are high, and this is in the form of the block size limit; with the theory a smaller block size limit keeps the total chain size low(er) so everyday users can run nodes to verify. Its also pretty useful as reducing spam transactions/flood attacks as well imo. I personally would be very surprised that with the deflationary nature of computer parts and data if these block size isn't increased at some point, but I'm certainly not an expert on this and could not say whether it would be a meaningful increase. If the block size stays the same then we have to accept Bitcoin is planning for high transaction fees in the future. Although this restricts its use as a every day currency for regular commerce there is nothing to say that people who are running services on the chain will not pay them, such as opening a lightning channel for others to us or some other form of layer 2 service, or even "Bitcoin Banks" who are happy to pay high fees to move large amounts of currency around. Funnily enough even Hal Finney discussed the concept of Bitcoin Banks. I did like his idea that even if transaction fees are not enough to maintain security then something will be built that will be linked to the distribution of bitcoins in order to protect the fair distribution of these and I suspect that would be a more acceptable approach if needed. Honestly though, I think Bitcoins hard cap will never change as if its changed once then the thought will be that it can always be changed again, and thus the cap looses any true meaning. Overall a thoughtful article and worth a read.