Mircea Popescu is a largely overlooked presence in this domain, yet he was once a significant cultural influencer in the early days before gradually fading from the broader public view to eventually “accidentally” drown off the coast of Costa Rica. He was undoubtedly eccentric and quite controversial, leaving a lasting mark on this field. I would assert that he embodies the archetype of what many today refer to as “toxic maximalism,” although in comparison to current adherents of that label, he would make them seem like overly sensitive and petulant individuals.
Among his most notable writings is a 2013 exploration of Bitcoin’s price and the long-term market dynamics involved. He articulated the interplay of supply and demand and specifically highlighted the differing mindsets of current Bitcoin holders and typical consumers, who may or may not feel compelled to accumulate Bitcoin in light of the waning fiat system.
He characterized the friction between these two groups as a stalemate, with current holders having little motivation to part with their Bitcoin, while those trying to divest their depreciating fiat currency find themselves with no effective recourse if Bitcoin holders remain resolute.
He outlined three potential resolutions to this stalemate.
“One of them is that consumers yield and submit, Bitcoin goes to somewhere in the thousand dollars per range and there’s a rush to move society away from the dysfunctional standard. Banks start accepting Bitcoin deposits, Bitcoin hedge funds emerge everywhere, and the FED chairman, ECB chairman, and others come to Timisoara whenever they seek to gain my endorsement and so forth.”
This seems to be the trajectory we are currently following. The capitulation of the existing system, integration into legacy finance, and the idolization of early adopters and Bitcoin as a remedy for the systemic issues of fiat. This is what Bitcoin enthusiasts are rallying around in terms of our future, viewing every minor announcement from a bank, ETF, or investment fund as evidence of their capitulation! We have triumphed!
This is sheer delusion. Trump’s attempts to appease Bitcoin supporters for campaign funding do nothing to genuinely benefit Bitcoin; he will always prioritize the dollar. His viewpoint revolves around the idea of the money printer and projecting our inflation globally as a significant boon for American interests. The Democrats, likewise, are largely adversarial towards this space for similar motivations.
Even in a scenario where such a future genuinely materializes, beyond mere nomenclature, it would be bleak and disheartening for anyone who sees Bitcoin as a means of freedom and sovereignty. Utilizing Bitcoin would grant that to virtually no one. Hedge funds, banks, and ETFs would be the principal stewards for most individuals, leaving no one truly autonomous; we would be trapped in the same financial system we currently inhabit, where action requires the approval of some authoritative figure controlling your assets. Regulations wouldn’t foster competition in this arena; established players would leverage their revolving doors to entrench their privileged positions.
This trajectory would spell disaster for Bitcoin as an instrument of freedom and merely evolve the same game played now, albeit with slightly stricter regulations for the favored few with access to the table.
“Another one of them is that consumers revolt, governments intervene, we all spend the remainder of this decade in conflict. Bitcoin also rises to thousands of dollars per unit, but the energy, effort, and resources that could have been directed towards yielding and submitting productively are squandered in a futile struggle to appear tough with a weak hand. Neutral and disengaged governments emerge victorious, and as the dust settles, the macroeconomic balance of power shifts from the Western world to whatever, China, Iran, Brazil, or elsewhere.”
This is the scenario where Bitcoin is actively resisted. People start converting to Bitcoin en masse, prompting governments to impulsively try and obstruct this shift. A chain reaction ensues as Bitcoin becomes increasingly integral to global finance, beyond the control of the legacy financial system. Countries that oppose this transformation will ultimately harm themselves, while more agile jurisdictions that either embrace or avoid interference will reap substantial benefits.
In this scenario, Western governments complicate the usage of Bitcoin, yet individuals persist regardless. The rest of the world with clear foresight avoids obstruction or actively embraces the change, while the West expends all its effort fighting the inevitable. The rest of the globe experiences economic revival while the Western world languishes, its inhabitants struggling to achieve any form of economic success (or merely stay afloat).
As harsh as it seems, this is the world I envision. One in which the West’s dominance and coercive power over the rest of the globe gradually dissipate. We possess no inherent right to control the world as we currently do, and this pathway would slowly diminish our capacity to maintain such control. Citizens of the West can adopt Bitcoin to defend our freedoms and sovereignty, thus insulating ourselves from the collapse of our corrupt systems.
A triumph in revolution is neither free nor simple. For Bitcoin to fulfill the aspirations many of us hold, we must accept the reality that traversing this troubled path is essential. This path necessitates active choice by individuals. Many in this community harbor the misconception that governments will simply concede and allow Bitcoin to prevail, but that is merely a guise for their efforts at capture.
We must strive to build around them, construct in parallel, and compel their action. If they do not actively combat it, something else is occurring. That scenario does not bode well for us.
“Yet another one of them is that consumers revolt, entrepreneurs intervene, and by the end of 2015 there are roughly one thousand to one million different Bitcoin forks, each with a monetary base of about ten million units worth approximately a dollar, on average. The intricate inter-Bitcoin market and ensuing complexity make everything nearly unmanageable for the ‘ordinary person’. Hedge funds and banks (the ones slightly ahead of using Excel) that navigate this murky landscape profit immensely and become the main drivers of economic growth worldwide. The consumer finds themselves similarly disadvantaged as before, but is once again reminded that revolt equates to greater disadvantage in the long run. Additionally, the targets of revolt have become significantly more nebulous and intangible. Statistically, this outcome seems the most probable, given that history tends to favor the most cruel treatment of the ‘average person’.”
Popescu regarded this as the most probable outcome. Constant fragmentation would result in Bitcoin splintering into countless forks of the original. Various regions or groups with distinct viewpoints would establish their own separate networks, leading to the erosion of network effects until the ecosystem diversifies into so many sub-fragments that few individuals can effectively track them.
Many believe this chapter has concluded, that the turmoil experienced during and after the blocksize wars was simply a phase that has forever passed. That notion is a delusion. Nation-states are adopting Bitcoin, and major financial institutions, which essentially shape government policy, are integrating it into their operations.
The global landscape is one defined by coercive and extortive politics; the US engages in military interventions and causes the death of countless individuals merely to maintain control of commodity flows. To assume that they and other vested interests wouldn’t fork Bitcoin for their gain on a global scale is excessively naive. I would even assert that the initial instance of “capitulation” and subsequent swift capture of Bitcoin by these parties would virtually assure that this final outcome is realized.
Such a development would indicate a catastrophic failure. Fragmentation, loss of a unified network effect, leading to an absence of true supply scarcity and universal regulations affecting economic participants globally. A brief reprieve followed by a grim return to current conditions. An unequivocal failure of any revolutionary potential.
All three of these scenarios remain on the table; we have yet to commit to any of them definitively. It remains uncertain which path we will ultimately pursue. Bitcoin supporters could benefit from a little humility and acknowledgment that we have yet to come close to victory, and that failure is very much a possibility, in numerous forms.
Dutch
English
French
German
Greek
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish