Six Workers. One Decade. Bitcoin Won Every Time.

Maria got steady raises over a decade of teaching — 33%, above average for public sector workers. In dollar terms, she did everything right. Her SALI tells a different story: Bitcoin appreciated so much faster than her salary that her labor's satoshi value fell 99.6%. That's not a reflection of her career failing. It's a reflection of what Bitcoin did.

Carlos job-hopped, negotiated aggressively, and grew his salary 52% in seven years — one of the stronger outcomes in this set. He outperformed the tech sector average. Bitcoin still outperformed him. His SALI dropped 88% — the best argument for why earning more in dollars isn't the same as keeping pace with a fixed-supply asset.

James started in 2020 — the same year Bitcoin began its most significant appreciation run. COVID drove healthcare wages up; his salary grew 20% in five years, easily beating CPI inflation. It didn't matter. Bitcoin went from $11,116 to $101,642 in that window. His SALI dropped 86%.

The US federal minimum wage has not changed since 2009 — $7.25/hour, $15,080/year for full-time work. Sarah's salary in 2025 is identical to 2015. Bitcoin went from $272 to $101,642 over those ten years. Her SALI loss is the starkest illustration of what a fixed-supply asset means for labor with no nominal growth: 99.7%.

Skilled trades outperformed most sectors this decade. David's salary grew 41.8% in eight years. Against Bitcoin over that same window, his SALI dropped 94.4%. SALI doesn't judge careers — a 41.8% raise in eight years is genuinely good. It simply shows what Bitcoin's fixed-supply appreciation means when set against any salary trajectory.

Aisha had a strong run: promotions, job changes, a 32% salary increase in six years. By any conventional measure, a career success story. Her SALI fell 90%. Bitcoin's appreciation doesn't reward effort, industry, or performance — it simply reflects a fixed supply against a growing demand. That's what SALI makes visible.