This space suffers from the problem of inverted perceptions. What makes Bitcoin valuable in the first place is its decentralized nature. The reality is that it is a distributed system, with no central point of control, no central point of influence, and not even a central interface point for its users. This is the source of its flexibility and reliability. Without this feature, and without the ability to simply download a piece of software and start interacting with it, there is no value to be truly found.
It’s basically no different from a bank database at that point. No one can be guaranteed access when someone (the operator) wants to take it away, nor can basic properties like maximum supply or inflation rate be guaranteed when someone (the operator) can change them on a whim.
Many people in this space are cheering the erosion of these properties at this point. They advocate solutions like ETFs and other custodians as a way to pump up the price and increase their net worth denominated in fiat currency. They attack and defend those who work for solutions that do not impact Bitcoin’s core value propositions, portraying them as spies who “risk what makes Bitcoin valuable.”
It is a complete reversal of reality. Ghosts are heroes, and heroes are ghosts.
Saylor is Literally defending the guards As a better path to adoption than self-guardianship. He compares people who build and sell self-care tools to FUDsters, fear mongers, or “megalomaniac crypto anarchists.” Picture the people who are building the tools needed to defend and maintain the fundamental properties of Bitcoin that give it value in the first place. It completely ignores the dynamics that gave rise to gold and its role as a sound currency that dissolves over time as governments interfere and manipulate.
They accomplished this because all the gold was held by trustees, and no one kept it themselves. No one used it directly, and everyone chose to use paper substitutes separated from the precious metal itself instead. Bitcoin could suffer the same fate. Whether through fiat Bitcoin relieving market demand, or through custodians gaining direct influence over the consensus process and directly changing the rules to suit their needs and desires.
Bitcoin is a social consensus system, and its nature is entirely determined by the actors who participate in the system. The size of these actors, their individual nature(s), their vulnerability to government intervention, and how many of them make up the majority of economic activity (more is better, less is worse), all of these things greatly influence how Bitcoin works. It will evolve and exist as a system.
Many people in the field cheer short-term actions that threaten its long-term resilience as a neutral and decentralized system to achieve perceived short-term benefits in the form of higher prices and economic gains. Developers who work hard and with little gratitude to preserve those core properties that give them value are attacked as spies and government agents, while the corporate suits and actual spies who attack those properties are hailed as heroes.
The world in this space is turned upside down.
This article is a takes. The opinions expressed are entirely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.