Replying to Avatar Lyn Alden

I spoke at a big bitcoin-adjacent company this week and one of the best questions was from someone who asked what the downsides of bitcoin adoption might be.

I always do appreciate these steelman questions, the skeptical questions, the ones where we challenge ourselves. Only when we can answer those types of questions do we understand the concept that we are promoting.

So the classic example is that in modern economic literature, "deflation is bad". This, however, is only the case in a highly indebted system. Normally, deflation is good. Money appreciates, technology improves, and goods and services get cheaper over time as they should. Price of Tomorrow covers this well. My book touches on this too, etc. The "deflation is bad" meme is still alive in modern economic discourse and thus is worth countering, but I think in the bitcoin spectrum of communities, people get that deflation is fine and good.

My answer to the question was in two parts.

The first part was technological determinism. In other words, if we were to re-run humanity multiple times, there are certain rare accidents that might not replicate, and other commonalities that probably would. Much like steam engines, internal combustion engines, electricity, and nuclear power, I think a decentralized network of money is something we would eventually come across. In our case, Bitcoin came into existence as soon as the bandwidth and encryption tech allowed it to. In other universes or simulations it might look a bit different (e.g. might not be 21 million or ten minute block times exactly), but I think decentralized real-time settlement would become apparent as readily as electricity does, for any civilization that reaches this point. So ethics aside, it just is what it is. It exists, and thus we must deal with it.

The second part was that in my view, transparency and individual empowerment is rarely a bad thing. Half of the world is autocratic. And half of the world (not quite the same half) deals with massive structural inflation. A decentralized spreadsheet that allows individuals to store and send value can't possibly be a bad thing, unless humanity itself is totally corrupted. I then went into more detail with examples about historical war financing, and all sorts of tangible stuff. In other words, a whole chapter full of stuff. I've addressed this in some articles to.

In your view, if you had to steelman the argument as best as you could, what are the scenarios where bitcoin is *BAD* for humanity rather than good for it, on net?

I believe it is an elitist form of money. You need higher than normal technical skills to acquire, hold, and use. There will be millions if not billions of people who need it and can’t get it unless they provide “value”. Which basically makes them working servants.

Currently you need the luxury of extra funds and the proper equipment to buy and hold, that is very difficult for a large majority.

A large sum of people that are buying do not self custody. They will likely lose their coins if the value ever shifts.

I love the good it can bring, but ultimately humanity will still be split by the Haves and Have-nots.

Plus, as Wall Street continues to get into it from ETFs and Miner stocks…we are letting legacy institutions that have been corrupted wiggle in. Can they end up with control if we aren’t careful? History says yes.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

I believe you need less technical skill to hold and use than being able to drive a car. The plebs I come across are not anywhere near elitist and the hundreds of shops accepting bitcoin in the Netherlands are definitely not elitist shop owners. They like the saving character of it. Something which is deeply engrained in Dutch culture. Acquiring bitcoin is still possible by exchanging it for fiat. At some point you will have to add value to acquire it, just like with fiat. The difference is, bitcoin can’t be created by a few banks that enslave you through their debt creation. You can actually save for a future which is inherently deflationary. When talking to my elders of 80+ years old, they talk about saving a few years to buy a house. Sometimes a local lender got involved, but it could be paid back within a few years of hard work. From 1971 it all shifted towards large bank debt based society. The old generation here still doesn’t understand. "My yearly property tax is now more than what I bought the property for” is one of my favorites. Oh and this guy is 82 years old and holds bitcoin in self custody. He understands it really well.

There's also a lot of folks without internet (2.9B) or electricity (770M) in the world. I don't really think of those as elitist technologies normally. Maybe I should. Similar idea? Different?

Definitely similar. I don’t know if elitist is the right word, but having internet and electricity is definitely an advantage/luxury.

Indeed.

ETFs could postpone widespread real adoption by many many years.

And open btc up for even more price manipulation

I get people cheering on more “adoption “ but even more and bigger institutions opening up for other institutions and big players to invest in such an asset indirectly is terrible for true real world adoption and usage.

We need to start measuring the value of btc in watts, not currency, yesterday!!!