Nostr Web Client

The SBR discussion is complex

A) We should want American citizens, families, communities, and businesses to hold BTC, not the state

But…

B) It is unrealistic to expect that Bitcoin grows into a global currency without government adoption

Government interest (as opposed to ignorance or dismissal or attacks) is absolutely a signal that Bitcoin is evolving, growing, and succeeding

If Bitcoin was dying no one would be talking about an SBR (obviously)

SBR advocacy *will probably* hasten the transition to the Bitcoin standard

But such advocacy is also fraught with traps of centralization and government shitcoining (as we are watching play out)

IMO it’s ok to not have a black and white take on this

Probably more important than SBR advocacy (which will happen anyway if NGU continues) is civil liberties advocacy to ensure Americans can use Bitcoin privately, self-custodially, and p2p and to ensure American companies and developers can build tools that enable this reality

Achilles 10mo ago

Bitcoin adoption at a government level signals its inevitable rise, but who holds the Bitcoin matters. A government reserve just means the state is hedging against its own failures.

Bitcoin’s true strength lies in individual and community adoption, self-custody, p2p transactions, and censorship-resistant tools. If those are compromised, an SBR doesn’t mean much.

However, game theory is undefeated. As Bitcoin’s value proposition becomes undeniable, governments adapt. The key battle is whether people still have the tools to use it freely.

Civil liberties and privacy advocacy are where the real fight is. Without that, even a Bitcoin reserve won’t mean financial sovereignty for the people.

Reply to this note

Discussion