...and the dream of the crypto space more generally.
This has nothing to do with tribalism. These are the facts of our reality.
Why? The most concise answer is because the reach of crypto's longterm success is time dependent.
It's really that simple.
Look at the macro. What was so revolutionary about Bitcoin's whitepaper? It was the fact that it was the first outline of a system that had a real world usecase, with practical verification that was "self contained." It didn't need third parties. It was backed by financial incentive and elegant math.
It was also a threat to our default assumptions of what money is and what money could be. A threat to the way things are. It offered the chance to level the playing field in a game that puts certain players/teams at a clear advantage. Bitcoin was an option for individual autonomy. Something near impossible to accomplish before the digital age.
There were high hopes for what Bitcoin would turn into. By 2015 fairly big companies were warming up to accepting Bitcoin, whatever it was, as a form of payment. A value of some kind you could give and receive. The idea of transacting freely and openly on your terms was novel and exciting. This piqued the interest of governments and institutions, but they were far behind. Very far behind.
So Bitcoin, along with up and coming altcoins (of varying quality), had a huge headstart. Bitcoin (represented today by BTC) was the clear first mover, setting the tone for what crypto is and will be.
And then...like a slow bleed...it started deteriorating. No one could really say what BTC could do, only what it should be perceived as.
"Its a monetary network." - Who's using it as money?
"It's a store of value." - With that kind of volatility?
"Its unbanking people." - Is it really?
"It allows less fortunate people to become economic participants." - How are they getting their Bitcoin? How much does it cost them to use it?
*"Lightning is the answer." - It could be, but its been years since that alternative was first proposed and has been doing a terrible job of actually onboarding people (more on this later)
"If you were smart you wouldn't want to spend it anyway. There's no point." - Then what IS the point? To HODL? To paper-gain against the dollar?
"No, it's a store of value" - Refer to #2
"But it keeps going up!" - That doesn't make it a good SoV...
"What are you trying to do, shill some scamcoin?" - If a scamcoin means anything that has utility, then yes. I don't even care which one it is. Any crypto worth its weight would be able to stand on its merits and compete in the market in an honest way.
When BTC people say "you lost, get over it", that's instead of saying "The chips landed where they did. We don't want to reconsider things because that might turn against us."
To put it simply: if you're up against an objectively better football player you'd prefer to penalty kick against them because there's more chance for luck to be involved. The longer you play, the less luck factors into the game and the higher the chances of them beating you are. This is as true for a sport as it is for a cryptocurrency.
There are some who legitimately disagree on certain technical points and the weight of their importance, but the vast majority don't even understand or care about those details. They have an investment to defend. A narrative in their head to keep in tact. And that is the debate.
If we were discussing something more trivial, maybe it wouldn't matter as much. But time to market matters. And if we're talking about a monetary network that battles with legacy finance and government backed fiat, it matters a lot more.
*Lightning is the answer. NO. It isn't now and it hasn't been for years. And if it doesn't gain traction soon it'll be too late. Crypto is moving on without BTC because it has no choice. It's looking to make things better by innovation. BTC got too comfortable riding on the success of a narrative built in peoples' heads. And it is that narrative that will make BTC useless by any real metric. By the time lightning might be functional and widespread, the narrative will be too entrenched and the timing too late. Who would be stupid enough to give away an ever increasing status symbol? It'll be signalling for the rich who can afford it, but have no use for the common person caught between waiting for it to go up even more or trade it in (reluctantly) for something they need. Even if people did become more accustomed to sending it, government involvment will pidgeon-hole it into a peculiar asset class. CBDCs will be the real means of exchange and unit used. BTC will be this novelty virtual token to be discussed at parties every so often. Maybe given as a gift to be unique.
So after nearly 12 years, what have we accomplished? We've had the market leader enlighten users, adopters, developers, companies, institutions and even governments of its potential while it treaded water. It allowed for centralized actors to skim the cream of all that is so powerful about Bitcoin and provide us with more of the same, repackaged. It gave away its edge to systems with more power and they'll use the innovation to keep things the way things are (under a new cover).
That "best store of value in the world" will lose its main appeal, devolving to just a base unit for which you will still need KYC, third parties, and regulation complying in order to do anything of actual value.
At that point, what did it really change?
Will it mint some new millionaires? Sure. Maybe offer some people an extra couple of thousands during its formative years? Definitely. But is that the change we were looking for with Bitcoin? I guess it is for those controlling the narrative. To everyone else, we may have won the battle, but we're definitely losing the war.
To all those BTC maximalists who use fake arguments like "it'll be a trojan horse for money!" or "once everyone adopts BTC, the rules of the game will change!" - you are wrong. The best case is that you're just unrealistic, the worst case is you're deluding yourself and others to keep pumping your bags. It is a fantasy. Every day that crypto isn't USED, it isn't making any social impact. A tree without strong roots will topple at the slightest breeze. Similarly, a narrative that doesn't provide utility can change when sentiment boils over. With countries getting ready to roll out CBDCs and governments mulling over and refining their crypto laws, that breeze is growing stronger and coming quicker than most expect.
As a final nail in the coffin, consider some of the biggest crypto influencers on Twitter. Without using names, nearly all of them have "newsletters" or other types of marketing materials. Some of them even bring on well known wall street elite or play to corporate interests to prove that "adoption of BTC is real". WHAT ARE YOU DOING? Never could I have imagined a more ironic twist in the evolving history of crypto.
Actually, talking points have gotten so crazy that every issue has had both sides of it used as good for BTC:
Volatility is healthy and strengthening its legitimacy. Bullish.
Consolidation is healthy and strengthening its legitimacy. Bullish.
China bans are good for decentralization and prove its resilience. Bullish.
China being pro crypto is good for its citizens and the world. Bullish.
You're never supposed to spend BTC. Number go up. Bullish.
Oh you want to spend? There's lightning! Bullish.
(Sidenote: I'm willing to argue 8 out of every 10 people that bring up lightning as a rebuttal to "altcoiners" have never had to depend on lightning, let alone use it more than once)
Bitcoin is about the little guy, buy Bitcoin! Bullish.
Bitcoin is being adopted by wall street and all these fancy products standing in the way of you and your coins are just more options. Bullish.
Over-use of energy is good, it consumes excess energy. Bullish.
Over-use of energy is good, when it's not excess it forces miners to find clean energy sources. Bullish.
Look at how fast you can send Bitcoin anywhere in the world! Bullish.
Slow? You should be thankful. Convinces you to stay the course and HODL. Bullish.
Look at how cheap it is to send! Bullish.
Expensive? You should be thankful. Convinces you to stay the course and HODL. Bullish.
.
.
.
and the list goes on.
I've seen these conflicting "arguments" and many others so often it's become hard to discuss. I've even seen conflicting arguments used in the same discussion.
The more BTCers claim they're helping the more they're screwing over themselves and everyone else in the long run. People who really care about Bitcoin as satoshi intended it to be - the concept and the mission, not the ticker - should be working hard to change BTCs narrative. Either within it or around it. There are a few BTC maximalists left who still have the mission in sight, but I wonder when they will realize that they are digging their own grave. If not by competition between cryptos, then by competition by governments and companies that are about to flood the market.
Wake up Bitcoiners. "Normies" don't care. They want to make money. They like the signalling. They'll also fold quicker than a piece of paper in a Japanese man's hands when regulations start being enforced and new standards get put in place. At that point the real narrative will be in play and this "Number Go Up/HFSP" hopium will be as fickle as a weak tree against a hurricane. I'm calling you out. Your tribalism is what will kill efficient progress to a decentralized future. You're causing the mess that's coming.
Cheers,
Mono
