And how do you suppose we fix this problem?

GM. From Space Boi on X. I found it thought provoking.

"@JasonPLowery

In my opinion, the content and narrative pushed by many Bitcoiners are, ironically, one of the primary root causes for the fraud & scams seen in the "crypto" industry. Bitcoiners excel at promoting the idea that Bitcoin is "digital gold," focusing on its monetary aspects and its positive impact on the global financial system.

The problem with this approach is that it creates a Faustian bargain. Bitcoiners articulate the ethical need for a better form of money and an improved financial system better than anyone. However, this singular focus on money and finance inadvertently leads many to compromise these principles in pursuit of quick financial gains in the broader "crypto" space. As a result, people who initially embrace Bitcoin’s vision and the ethical need for monetary reform often end up rationalizing their involvement in speculative altcoins, memecoins, and sidetracked projects that promise more immediate returns. Eventually, they convince themselves that their personal altcoin investments, rather than Bitcoin, should become the global standard.

In other words, Bitcoiners end up "crypto-pilling" people more than they "Orange-pill" them. All the effort and literature dedicated to explaining why we need a better monetary system often backfires. To test this theory, I challenge you to ask crypto enthusiasts what got them into the space. More often than not, they will recite lessons they learned from books like The Bitcoin Standard.

So how do we fix this? Unfortunately, Bitcoiners often resort to berating and attacking individuals as "shitcoiners" rather than providing a nuanced explanation of why a particular altcoin is unlikely to replace Bitcoin. The core issue is that making the case for "Bitcoin only" is far more challenging than simply explaining the need for better money. Instead of rising to this challenge and engaging in thoughtful discourse, many Bitcoin advocates default to dismissiveness and criticism (I’ll admit, I’ve been guilty of this myself).

Worse, berating crypto holders doesn’t actually convince them to sell their altcoins. If anything, it emboldens them, as it signals that Bitcoiners are relying on emotional arguments rather than logical, technical reasoning. When Bitcoiners engage in personal attacks instead of substantive critique, it only reinforces the belief that their altcoin investment must be valid—after all, if Bitcoin is so superior, why wouldn’t its proponents rely on logic and reason instead of insults?

This feeds into the hands of frauds like Vitalik perfectly, hence the birth of the "Bitcoin Maxi" term.

Over the years, I’ve learned that a more effective way to Orange-pill people—rather than crypto-pill them—is to remove the Faustian bargain altogether. This can be done by broadening the conversation beyond Bitcoin as just "digital gold" and emphasizing its unique functionalities and advantages that alternative systems are physically incapable of replicating. This is why I believe it’s essential to help people understand why Bitcoin’s design and infrastructure—particularly the scale and security of its Proof-of-Work (PoW) system—are fundamentally different from other so-called cryptocurrencies.

This is why I consider myself a PoW maximalist rather than a Bitcoin maximalist. My focus is on helping people recognize the deeper significance of PoW through emerging fields of theoretical computer science, such as Digital Power and Digital Matter theory. By shifting the discussion in this direction, we can highlight Bitcoin’s true innovation and counter the distortions that fuel the speculative excesses of the broader crypto industry.

Simply remove money, gold, and finance from the equation, and it's suddenly far easier to orange pill people.

"

Ping.

Wouldn’t he be smart to hold off on the announcement until he secretly accumulated a significant amount? Otherwise the price would skyrocket ahead of the US doing any actual buying.