I think mentioning Bitcoin at the end of the book was much more effective than presenting it from the start.

People can’t understand the potential of a solution until they understand the problem.

Burying the lead, so to speak, after fully explaining the depth of the problem makes the reader naturally more receptive to the solution once presented because they’re searching for it.

You have to meet people where they are, not where you want them to be, and that starts with agreeing that a problem exists.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

This is how I run my class economy. We go through five periods - barter, feudal, present day, technocratic communism, then end with bitcoin. My students know by the end of the year what problem btc solves.

Be sure to spend plenty of time on the economic stupidity of communism and highlight the 100 Million + deaths that evil ideology has wrought unto the world. It’s a disgrace that kids aren’t completely anti-communist by their teens, fiat education has failed.

They feel the stupidity of every epoch :) You should see what happens when I flood the market with liquidity, give some students large sums of money, and then bid up the prices at our marketplace!

The confiscation and redistribution of property is equally as effective!

Haha that’s the way! 🤣

I’ve explained fiat to friends before using postit notes as currency, they quickly understood how powerful it is to have a monopoly on the postits and how inflation actually occurs.

Agreed. I think I’m right in recalling that even The Bitcoin Standard barely even mentions Bitcoin until one of the later chapters. Much more time is devoted to describing the problem, and relatively little to Bitcoin itself, notwithstanding the title of the book.

Yes, you’re correct. The premise being that until you understand how broken the fiat system is you cannot understand or appreciate the solution.

That’s so true, and well expressed