Well argued article. I generally agree with you that many elements of the hyperbitcoinization narrative are rather fanciful,, and I also generally agree that the "Bitcoin fixes everything" narrative is a massive oversimplification. From that, I believe you're still bullish on Bitcoin. My question is: given there are some downsides to the political economy, what are your thoughts on the part Bitcoin can play in helping in those areas?

(I apologize if you've covered the answer to this in about article you've already published)

Thoughtful and balanced 👏

A lot of salient ideas here with regards to political economy generally, which I think can be boiled down to the fact that almost ALL human interaction, except perhaps the base layer operations of money (and speech) on an internet standard, benefit demonstrably from some non-zero amount of centralization / centrally-managed coordination.

Full disclosure, I tend to believe that there is high potential for Bitcoin lead to, at least, the expression of the night watchman state in certain places - though certainly non universally. This I think is a good thing because diversity across systems is resilience.

Instead of inescapable global hyperbitcoinization, perhaps what’s more likely - at least over the near-mid term, is a spectrum of systemic outcomes ranging from 1984 style fiat-panopticon to full on giga-Chad hyperbitcoinized libertarianism, with everything else in between.

That said, fiat has emerged as the present global monetary standard, overtaking previous standards before it. I see no reason my the prevailing system cannot or would not be disrupted in the same way where conditions make it, collectively, at the society level, what is determined to be the optimal path forward.

Appreciate the thoughtful article.

One thought I would offer...

You don't expect the welfare state to go away because you say people want it to exist. If I analyze that, I think it's important to specify what people actually want.

They want the benefits of the welfare state for themselves, without the costs. You say voters support Social Security. What would happen if you proposed a change to Social Security where each person is required to pay into the fund, their payments are kept segregated from everyone else and earn the savings account interest rate, and at retirement they are allowed to withdraw the money they paid in minus an administrative fee, and once their account is empty that's it. Would that get the overwhelming support Social Security has?

I doubt it. The reason Social Security is so popular is that most people perceive they'll get benefits, and the cost is hidden. They think they're getting more than they're giving. I think that applies to the welfare state in general; people perceive it to be "something for nothing."

This is relevant. Have you ever heard someone who supports Social Security say "I always make sure to pay taxes on all the miscellaneous cash payments I receive, plus throw in a few grand extra every year. I support Social Security so I want to do my part to make sure it stays solvent." Of course not. Almost no one contributes to o the welfare state voluntarily.

That's by definition. If someone wants to contribute voluntarily to a system that they don't benefit from disproportionately, they donate to charity. The difference between charity and a welfare system is that the welfare system is coercive. If it weren't coercive, it wouldn't exist. Its role would be filled by a charity.

The current welfare state benefits by being deceptively coercive: the cost is mostly hidden in inflationary monetary expansion, so most people feel like they're benefitting from the system.

Bitcoin can undermine welfare systems by making it extremely difficult to the point of being uneconomical to coerce people. No one is going to willingly agree to have their wealth redistributed away. They might support the current welfare state as a concept, but that doesn't mean they won't hold their savings in Bitcoin as NGU and resist any effort by governments to take that value.

To me this reads more like an argument against libertarianism than hyperbitcoinization. The first governments to adopt can happily have guns and butter while collecting taxes in bitcoin.

good to have a Mike Brock weekend read again! =) tho these are all assumptions from both sides - nobody knows what will happen when use cases of bitcoin picks up. There are too many variance - culture, current gov'ts and motives, the level of understanding among people etc - application will clue you in better