The Blockchain as Sovereignty of the Individual

The philosophy of the crypto ecosystem is decentralization. The pillar on which the blockchain technology was built is the transmission of information between peer nodes, in a structure without a central server, producing the information chain in a consensual way between strangers, trustless (P2P), from of a cryptographic protocol that provides that trust, with open public participation, and permissionless from a central power.

The CYPHERPUNK MANIFESTO published in 1993, by Eric Hughes, proposes the sovereignty of the individual based on privacy.

“Privacy is necessary for an open society in the electronic age. Privacy is not secrecy. A private matter is something one doesn’t want the whole world to know, but a secret matter is something one doesn’t want anybody to know. Privacy is the power to selectively reveal oneself to the world. “

The privacy contains decentralization because it is the power of each individual, their data and acts independently to dispose of a sovereign.

This privacy does not imply an anonymity intended to commit criminal acts, as much of the mass media of (mis)information disseminates, but, in a responsibility of a responsible and respectful society, we can allow ourselves that individual right. Something that the central power, the establishment, does not like, because that implies a loss of power.

Having people’s private information is the most valuable weapon for a central entity.

By now, and after 12 years since Bitcoin made its novel appearance, generating a whole P2P ecosystem, bankers have understood the enormous power that blockchain technology has for people, but as such, it also has it to maintain the status quo Since the speed of data transmission, low costs and traceability, it is ideal for the control, of course, if they co-opt the technology and revert it to a subordinate, centralized structure.

This concept of personal sovereignty can best be explained, dear reader, by antagonism, that is, by antithesis.

Furthermore, to demonstrate how this privacy and decentralization as pillars of sovereignty annoys the establishment, I will quote an article from one of the most widely read mass media in the crypto industry. Of course, in my opinion, the intention of the media in a clear lobbyist attitude.

The title only speaks for itself in its intent: “ Why do we need custodial services?”. This article was published only in Spanish, and here I present it in translation.

Without making an exhaustive analysis of the note, since I do not intend to make a journalistic criticism, I will only refer some notable fragments to the idea that I want to raise, and that of course you can read in full to verify what I propose.

The radical individualism that it presents, in an exaggerated form, is not typical of the ultraconservatives, but in such a case, of the libertarians or even more, of the anarchists. No human society in history has progressed in isolation. He accuses the blockchain ecosystem of extreme individuality, something so far from reality, such as P2P, the relationship of two pairs, interacting in a personal way. Here, the key is the relationship, which the writer seems to ignore, arguing a hermit individualism.

In the first place, and although it uses quotation marks to lower the tone of criticism, it proposes the “libertarian” world, as an opposition to the “normal” world. For the writer, “normality” is unique, and a “libertarian” world cannot coexist with its “normality.” The pragmatism of the “normal” world that he refers to is the status quo, the one that has historically imposed its power. It shows that ideology as unfeasible, outside of pragmatism. Of course, that individual freedom is unfeasible for the interests of the establishment.

Agree, there is demand for custody services, as there is also for traditional banks with fiat currency deposits, and also complex financial products that only serve as speculation and manipulation for the financial elite. The custody service is proposed as the security need that people need, because individuals alone cannot manage their funds, they need the protection of a centralized scheme. Thus, acting as a protective father, they have always “sold” us the convenience of their actions. Their business is “taking care of us.”

“Not your keys, not your cryptos” is not a definition that fits (or likes) centralism. For them individual responsibility is wrong, better is trust in a third party, according to the writer, for their “normal” world. According to him, the masses operate according to customary practices, thus arguing that capitals need custodial services. Now it is more than clear, that “normal” world for him is the banks and large financial institutions (cryptocurrency exchanges are, or will be, crypto-banks).

The second reading in this message, and no less important, is the lack of privacy, since these custodians know all the movements of their customers.

The usual practices of central power clear that do not coincide with libertarian aspirations, since individual sovereignty is a threat to the centralization of power. Designing financial instruments by the global elite, such as an ETF to engulf Bitcoin, is an example of their manipulation, to devour that decentralization from an unproductive tool, which only replicates a quote, in this case that of a cryptocurrency that It aims to establish itself as a means of payment or a refuge of value.

Then, the closing of the article is very clear with the propaganda objective that the writer wanted to spread, qualifying self-custody as a sign of immaturity, allowing to infer that the custody of funds by third parties is maturity. Are you financially mature someone who cannot take care of your funds and needs the protection of unknown third parties?

Anyway, as I said, it was not my intention to criticize the article, I only used it to clarify certain concepts such as decentralization, privacy and individual autonomy, for the sovereignty of people, something that blockchain technology allows us, and which is clear, that the establishment does not want.