I think Turismo is referencing working directly for Bitcoin, right?
This topic has been puzzling me as an entrepreneur, still doing the majority of work in the old systems. nostr:npub1s05p3ha7en49dv8429tkk07nnfa9pcwczkf5x5qrdraqshxdje9sq6eyhe ‘s book has me looking for a way to navigate these transitions personally and with our company. I salute all the companies like nostr:npub1ex7mdykw786qxvmtuls208uyxmn0hse95rfwsarvfde5yg6wy7jq6qvyt9 and nostr:npub15369wu3wzzar5fclhecyqfv683x69n6nhlg7rxqnsg2dydgxflpq3apswl that manage to operate on a Bitcoin standard. But also they work with the legacy world where needed right?
My intuition tells me that excluding many potential customers slows down the transition to BTC. Specifically, when compared to the approach where you serve the most people as possible. Regardless of what they pay you in.
It looks somewhat like saying “I am not willing to collaborate with most of humanity until they adopt a bitcoin standard”. This would slow us down more than necessary it looks like to me. What if we just 100x outperform everything as individuals and organisations? Wouldn’t that create far more proliferation, faster? On all fronts; from SoV, MoE to UoA?
Is the fundamental question “what approach creates the most demand, without jeopardizing the degree of decentralization and security?” Currently I think we work with clients from the legacy system and use BTC as a SoV for the created surplus. Aside from that we do anything we can to switch to decentralized protocols where possible. But I am unsure if I’m missing something. Should I look at it differently?
