This domain is grappling with a challenge of distorted perceptions. The fundamental value of Bitcoin lies in its decentralized structure. It’s a distributed framework devoid of a centralized control point, influence, or a singular interface for users. This characteristic underpins its durability and trustworthiness. Without this feature, the opportunity for genuine value evaporates.
At that stage, it bears no difference from a traditional bank’s database. Access can’t be assured when a single entity (the operator) chooses to restrict it, and core attributes such as the supply limit or inflation parameters become uncertain if they can be modified at will by the operator.
Currently, many individuals in this arena are applauding the dilution of these essential traits. They promote solutions like ETFs and other custodial services as routes towards inflated prices and boosting their own fiat-based wealth. Conversely, they confront those who strive for solutions that uphold Bitcoin’s foundational value propositions, labeling them as alarmists “endangering Bitcoin’s worth.”
This scenario reveals a profound inversion of truth. The alarmists are the true Champions, while the Champions are misrepresented as alarmists.
Saylor is openly supporting custodians as a more favorable avenue to adoption compared to self-custody. In his view, those creating and promoting tools for self-custody are akin to fear spreaders and “overly cautious crypto-anarchists.” He disregards the historical dynamics that caused gold’s status as sound money to erode when governments intervened and manipulated it.
This shift was facilitated by the fact that all gold was stored with custodians; individuals didn’t hold it themselves. The norm shifted towards paper substitutes that were disconnected from the actual precious metal. Bitcoin risks encountering a similar predicament, whether through paper-based Bitcoin undermining market demand, or custodians acquiring sway over consensus processes and modifying rules to serve their interests.
Bitcoin operates as a social consensus system, shaped entirely by the participants involved. The scale, individual characteristics, exposure to government interference, and the proportion of those engaged in economic activities (greater numbers being advantageous, fewer being detrimental) are critical factors in determining its evolution and overall existence.
A considerable portion of this community is celebrating short-sighted actions that jeopardize its long-term integrity as a neutral and decentralized system for fleeting benefits like price surges and financial rewards. Developers, who tirelessly work without recognition to uphold the essential properties contributing to its value, are vilified as alarmists and agents of government, while corporate figures and genuine alarmists undermining these properties are hailed as heroes.
The landscape in this arena appears thoroughly flipped.
This article represents a Take. The views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily mirror those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.
