⚡️💬 People who dismiss pseudonymity on social media often fall into the sunk cost fallacy.

Having paid the social cost of revealing their identity—through names, photos, or personal branding—they now experience the downside of that exposure. To justify their decision, they try to convince others to do the same, hoping to validate their own choice and share the burden. And seek to mitigate their loss by encouraging others to join them, hoping to validate their choice and dilute their grief.

Don’t follow their lead. Protect your pseudonymity as long as you can.

It gives you the space to be bolder with your ideas, to refine your thinking in public while staying more measured in your professional life. That doesn’t mean you lack courage—it means you’re playing the long game.

Remember: many of the U.S. founding fathers wrote under pen names, and that didn’t stop them from building one of the most powerful nations in history. More recently, Bitcoin was launched entirely by a pseudonym—and that’s likely a big reason it survived.

Ironically, many of the same people who criticize pseudonymity will praise both the U.S. founding fathers and Bitcoin in the same breath—clearly, this isn’t about logic, but about ego. Which makes it easy to realize that they're into something other than reason.

Without anonymity, there's no freedom.

"If you don't have anything to be ashamed of, you don't need to be anonymous".

This is one of the arguments most frequently used to justify surveillance and the lifting of anonymity. It's based on a dangerous inversion of democratic principles.

Privacy is a right, not a favor. It does not have to be "justified".

Removing anonymity means creating a surveillance society where only compliant opinions can be expressed without risk.

🗣️ I almost forgot one thing: "Fuck KYC"