Is this the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning?

Right now, the social aspect of BCH is a hot dumpster fire. The situation looks terrible. How can you have a project so dedicated to a common goal, yet with so many people in it sure that the other side is stalling progress, if not outright ruining its chances of success?

Call me crazy, but if handled correctly, this is a great thing for Bitcoin Cash.

To me, it means Bitcoin Cash is reaching "money time"; a stage where its evolution is starting to reach a stage of maturity that will either allow it to flourish (from a market perspective: value realization) or trudge along, always being "almost, but not quite" (from a market perspective: a sort of "value trap").

In order to have Bitcoin Cash excel at what it strives to do- be p2p cash for the world safely, reliably, and efficiently- it needs two things:

• Proper leadership

• Proper implementation

Everything else is secondary. I know that lately the conversation has shifted to "who should decide? How should it be decided?" That's fine. But the moment that discussion becomes more of a talking point to virtue signal your personal preference for handling the issues that have come up, without looking for real solutions, is the moment we regress. It does not even leave us in place. At minimum, there is a very real opportunity cost where you don't move forward. The more worrisome situation is that it causes unnecessary fractures that will become harder and harder to fix. The longer this drags on, the better the chances of this happening. At a certain point, people may lift their hands up in surrender from fatigue or frustration with problems that never really should have been problems to begin with.

This article is not the place to provide solutions. But I think, especially since there aren't critical disagreements (I argue that governance, while an unbelievably important topic, is almost entirely a "people" issue and not a "project" issue and hence is not a clear reason to split without exhausting all possibilities.)

I propose that a group should meet to "get it all out", with some people "in the middle" to keep the conversation relevant and nuanced. None of this meta game theory BS.

If, for instance, BCHN people (or anyone else) say "no matter what, Amaury has no place in BCH, at all", then they are part of the problem and probably don't care about BCH as much as they want to pretend they do.

If, for instance, BitcoinABC people (or anyone else) say "these no name developers are just trying to revolt as a means for power. They're worthless and cannot sustain the project", then they are part of the problem and probably don't care about BCH as much as they want to pretend they do.

A RECOMMENDATION

I think it would be proactive to have Amaury Sechet, Chris Troutner, Antony Zegers, Karol Trzeszczkowski, BCHcain, Tobias Ruck, Jonathan Toomim, George Donnelly, Imaginary_Username, and Chris Pacia in a meeting, moderated by David R. Allen. Obviously not a perfect list, but I think it strikes a balance between not having too many people while still representing the diverse set of opinions of people who are influential in the space- without turning the conversation into a hot mess.

[Note: There's a good chance the first meeting will be quite turbulent. It'll need at least one follow up to find common ground...]

There are probably a few names there that are thinking "don't get me more involved in this then I need/want to be." GOOD. It is exactly these people who probably have the soundest perspective of the situation. I obviously cannot force you to do it nor do I want to try, but your voices are especially important in this time.

• Think that a lot of the r/btc users don't know anything about tech innovation/basic economics? Say what you think will remedy the situation to avoid ("common folk") mindless groupthink.

• Think certain twitter personalities have gone too far too fast in turning this reasonable discussion into a circus, trying to signal how undeniably right they are? Say what you think will remedy the situation to avoid ("overly elitist") mindless groupthink.

To those who think that individualism means "I think of myself and voluntary exchange will handle the rest" - Here's a quick example:

The US constitution started with this preamble for a reason

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity [...]"

emphasis mine

That's not communism. You know it isn't. Please stop turning your valid criticism into a cesspool of superficial discussion. Amaury, you are not a worse visionary/developer for conceding (sometimes) if it makes BCH better. You're better and smarter than that. You know that many of these issues aren't make or break for BCH, though it might be more comfortable to pretend they are.

To those who want a better balance of "power". Fight the right fight. With all due respect, no one really cares about your previous disagreements/personal issues with Amaury/ABC.

To deny the ABC team of their unparalleled contribution to BCH is a disservice to the project and those following it. You want to help make better, more informed decisions? Neat! You don't have to do that by playing a game of social consensus. Lay out your plans. Show, don't tell. And honestly, Amaury is an asset. He deserves to be concerned about money and to question from where and when it will come. You can steer BCH in a more balanced way without trying to oust him. There's no need for it. This is even before I consider the damaging chaos of a split and its ripple effect. If you care about the project and seeing it reach its potential, try to find good solutions with him, not against him. Sooner rather than later and in an eery, almost mocking fashion, his problems will creep up and become your problems...

I urge people who are more in the middle to voice their opinions about being in the middle. Extremes have a tendency to shout loudest...

Let's do better. I'm open to any and all suggestions.

Cheers,

Mono.