Mircea Popescu is a largely forgotten figure in this field, but he was once a very influential cultural figure in his early days before he slowly faded from the wider public sphere and eventually drowned “accidentally” off the coast of Costa Rica. He was a bit of a madman and eccentric, but he left a lasting impact on the field. I would argue that he is essentially the godfather of what people today consider “toxic extremism,” although compared to the people who claim that label today, it makes them sound like overly sensitive, whiny children.
One of his works Most productive publications What I had in mind was his thinking about the price of Bitcoin and the market dynamics that this entails over the long term, back in 2013. He was discussing the dynamics of supply and demand interacting with each other, and in particular the mindset of current Bitcoin holders as opposed to regular consumers who may or may not have an incentive to try to accumulate Bitcoin in response to the deterioration of the fiat system.
The supposed friction between these two groups has been framed as a dead end, where existing Bitcoin holders have little incentive to give up their fiat, and people trying to get rid of their depreciating fiat have no real recourse if Bitcoin holders behave this way.
He suggested three possible solutions to this impasse.
““One of the reasons is that consumers are giving in and giving up, bitcoin is going to around $1k per band, and there is a rush to move society away from the dysfunctional norm. Banks are starting to accept bitcoin deposits, bitcoin hedge funds are popping up everywhere, the Fed president, the ECB president, and everyone else is coming to Timisoara whenever they want to move to get my blessing and so on.”
This is the way we go. seemingly Now, surrender to the current system, integrate into the legacy financial system, and venerate early adopters and Bitcoin as the solution to the systemic problems associated with fiat currencies. This is what Bitcoin supporters are currently promoting regarding our path forward, citing every little news item from a banking institution, or investment fund, as evidence that they have surrendered! We have won!
This is pure fantasy and delusion. Trump’s pandering to Bitcoin supporters seeking campaign funding is not really good for Bitcoin. He is a fan of the dollar and always will be. His mindset is based on the idea of printing money and exporting inflation globally, which is very positive for American interests. The Democrats are very hostile to the space, for similar reasons.
Even if this future actually comes to pass, in fact and not just in name, it will be a very bleak and bleak future for anyone who views Bitcoin as a tool for freedom and sovereignty. Bitcoin will not provide that to almost anyone. Hedge funds, banks, and ETFs will all be key holders for the vast majority of people. No one will have any real freedom, and it will be the same financial system we live in now where nothing can be done without asking permission from one of the lords who actually has control over your money. Regulation will not allow for increased competition in this space, and existing players will use their revolving doors to encourage takeovers and high walls around their privileged position in this role.
This path essentially means the failure of Bitcoin as a tool for freedom, and it’s the same game we see being played now with slightly stricter rules for the privileged few who can get a seat at the table.
“Among these reasons are also consumer revolt, government intervention, and the rest of the decade spent fighting each other. Bitcoin is worth thousands of dollars, but the energy, effort, and resources that could have been spent on comfortable surrender and productive subservience are wasted in an ultimately doomed attempt to play strong against a weak hand. Neutral, disengaged governments win, and as the dust settles, the balance of overall economic power shifts from the Western world to wherever—China, Iran, Brazil, etc.”
This is the path that these people are taking in openly fighting Bitcoin. People are actually starting to switch to Bitcoin in droves, and governments are reflexively trying to prevent this. This is where things start to swing as Bitcoin becomes a more important part of global finance outside the old financial system, and countries that resist and refuse to let this happen end up hurting themselves, while smaller, more adaptable countries that either stay away from this change or embrace it massively benefit.
In this world, Western governments make it extremely difficult to use Bitcoin, but people persist anyway. The rest of the smart world either gets out of the way, or proactively embraces it, while the West spends all its efforts and resources futilely fighting the inevitable. The rest of the world experiences a financial boom, while the West stagnates, its citizens struggling all the time to maintain any degree of economic success (or even just stay afloat).
As harsh as this may sound, this is the world I want to see. One in which the West’s hegemony and coercive control over the rest of the world is eroded. We have no special right to dominate the rest of the world the way we do, and this path forward will slowly disenfranchise us over time from the ability to continue to do so. Western citizens can embrace Bitcoin, defend our individual freedoms and sovereignty, and in doing so protect ourselves from the collapse of our corrupt institutions.
Victory in a revolution doesn’t come for free or easy. For Bitcoin to achieve what many of us hope it will, it will ultimately have to go through a painful path. And that means people have to choose to go down that path. Many in the industry believe that governments will simply give in and let Bitcoin win, but that’s just a ploy to step in and take over.
We need to push to build around them, build alongside them, and force them to do what they want. If they don’t actively resist it, then something else is going on. And that’s not good for us.
“Another reason is the consumer revolution, and the intervention of businessmen, and before the end of 2015 there were approximately a thousand to a million different Bitcoin forks, each with a monetary base of about ten million and worth about one dollar, on average globally. The size of the Bitcoin market between currencies, and the resulting complexity and confusion makes it almost unmanageable for the “average person.” Hedge funds and banks (which are a little ahead of us in this area) Using Excel) That trade in this mysterious complexity is so lucrative that it becomes the main engine of economic growth throughout the world. Not only does the consumer suffer from the same problem as now, but it has now been demonstrated once again that revolution means being exploited more forcefully, for longer, and with a thicker instrument with sharper thorns. It is also fitting that the thing we must revolt against has become more obscure and intangible. On the balance of probabilities, this would seem the most likely outcome, for history flows inexorably in that direction which most cruelly rapes the “average person.”
Popescu has identified this as the most likely outcome. Continuous fragmentation, with Bitcoin breaking into countless forks from the original. Each region, or group of people with a different idea, splits off into its own distinct networks. The network effect erodes until it becomes localized with more and more sub-fragments that people can’t keep track of.
Everyone assumes that this is over, that this was just a phase we passed during and immediately after the block size wars, and that it is closed forever. This is an illusion. Nation states have adopted Bitcoin, and major financial institutions that essentially write government policy are starting to integrate it into their systems.
The world is a game of political coercion and blackmail, where the US invades countries and kills hundreds of thousands of people just to keep goods flowing in the direction it wants. The notion that the US and other vested interests will not surrender Bitcoin to them on a global scale is naive. I would even go so far as to say that opening the first door, having these people “surrender” and quickly seizing Bitcoin would almost guarantee that this last door would eventually open.
This failure is the most extreme of failures. It is a fragmentation, there is no single network effect that imposes a real scarcity of supply, and most importantly, it condemns economic players worldwide. It is a brief truce and then an immediate return to the game as we know it now. It is a complete and irreversible failure of any form of revolution.
These three doors still stand, and we haven’t passed through any of them yet. And who can guess which one we will eventually pass through? Bitcoiners need a little humility, and acknowledge the fact that we’re not even close to winning, and failure is still possible. In multiple ways.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.