This space is suffering from a problem of inverted perceptions. What makes Bitcoin valuable in the first place is its decentralized nature. The fact that it is a distributed system, with no central point of control, no central point of influence, not even a central point of interface for its users. This is the source of its resiliency and reliability. Without this property, without the ability to simply download a piece of software and start interacting with it, there is really no value to be found.
It’s fundamentally no different from a bank database at that point. No one can be guaranteed access when someone (the operator) wants to take it away, no core properties like the supply cap or inflation rate can be guaranteed when someone (the operator) can change them at a whim.
Many people in this space cheer on the erosion of these properties at this point. They champion solutions like ETFs and other custodians as a pathway to pumping the price and increasing their own fiat denominated net worth. They attack those working towards and advocating for solutions that don’t compromise the core value propositions of Bitcoin, painting them as spooks “risking what makes Bitcoin valuable.”
It is a complete inversion of reality. The Spooks are Heroes, and the Heroes are Spooks.
Saylor is literally defending custodians as a superior path to adoption than self custody. He is comparing people building and selling tools for self custody to FUDsters and fear mongers, or “paranoid crypto anarchists.” Painting the people who are building the tools necessary to defend and maintain the core properties of Bitcoin that give it value in the first place. He totally ignores the dynamics that led to gold and its role as a sound money to melt away over time as governments interfered and manipulated it.
They accomplished this because all of the gold was held by custodians, no one held it themselves. No one directly used it, everyone choosing to use paper substitutes disconnected from the precious metal itself instead. Bitcoin can very much suffer the same fate. Whether through paper bitcoin diluting market demand, or custodians outright gaining influence over the consensus process and outright changing rules to suit their own needs and wants.
Bitcoin is a social consensus system, its nature is defined entirely by actors who participate in the system. The scale of those actors, their own individual nature(s), the vulnerability to government interference, how many of them make up the majority of economic activity (more being better, less being worse), all of these things factor heavily into how Bitcoin will evolve and exist as a system.
Many people in this space are cheering on short term actions that compromise its resilience in the long term as a neutral and decentralized system for perceived short term benefits in the form of price appreciation and economic gains. Developers working diligently and with little gratitude to maintain those core properties that give it value are attacked as spooks and government agents, while corporate suits and actual spooks attacking those properties are cheered on as heroes.
The world in this space is upside down.
This article is a Take. Opinions expressed are entirely the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.
