May I ask you to elaborate? This sounds intriguing.
And this is by design, as the only way to mint a new bitcoin is to throw away computational power (ie energy -> money). And the amount of power needing to be wasted is constantly adjusted by the network (it's targeting a certain amount of blocks / hour, adjusting the difficulty of the sha bruteforce, compensating for technological improvement).
Now, to create a bitcoin you need to mine a block (solving the bruteforce), inherently requiring a set (on average) amount of real world value (mostly energy) to be irrevocably wasted. For the miners to recoup those losses, they MUST sell the bitcoin they just created for at least their lost value. Which in turn, guarantee the minimum value of each bitcoin.
And with this system, the minimum value of each bitcoin is inversely equal to the amount of value "wasted".
I wonder if there's a graph anywhere showing the value of 1 BTC in kWh.
Claiming that PoW cost gives BTC its value is bonkers.
Heat causes chips and other components to degrade, so not everyone runs their miners at maximum output all the time.
> Meaning even if the value drops at exchanges, no miner will sell below this value due to not breaking even on electricity.
It does not work like that. If you need to pay your bills you will sell BTC for whatever price it is right now. Unless you want to long BTC, but that's a different story.
You have causation reversed here. It is not that bitcoin would not sell/be worth less than the amount to mine it.
Instead, it is that it wouldn't be mined if it were worth less than the cost to mine it.
At which point, miners would drop out, and the cost to mine it would reduce, as the difficulty goes down.