"Crypto" and the Bitcoin Maxi...

This is a topic that comes up often with me. Gordon knows a thing or two about both, but you'll never get anywhere if you don't work at making life a constant learning lesson.

There's always more to learn.

As I spend these little pockets of time choosing to be more active with my writing, I want to make a point to mention off the top, that I appreciate everyone who takes the time to read this stuff! A lot of us disagree, sometimes strongly, about some hot-button issues, and I'm thankful that thus far this platform continues to allow people to say things they believe, as the world around us seems intent on reducing what we're allowed to express.

Just a note for people to know I take the time to write this stuff because of you. It certainly isn't because of the nearly-1 penny it might earn in tips-lol! Although some day, I'm going to turn that FARM and AMPL into a fortune!

I spend a lot of time contemplating big-picture stuff as it pertains to the cryptosphere. I've done many things in my life (not the Half Life stuff you're already aware of), but crypto is fascinating in that it brings so many elements of society together. We have math geeks, technicians, engineers, MIT 'people', literal rocket scientists, brilliant (if not often misguided) economists, programmers/software engineers, we deal directly with the governments of the world, and anything political also means we can draw great lessons from history, which unfortunately is taught with such well-constructed faultiness, the truth has largely not survived the internet.

All of these things show us we are living in a time of great transition, but we wish for a free and open market to lead the dictates of our technological future, not under the mandates of power-hungry powers looking for new ways to suppress our imaginations and exploration into crypto. That is to say, we see crypto broadening into new definitions and classifications, encompassing art and music, and fundamental traditional roles of classification and copyright protection, licensing rules and absolute fungibility.

We see math colliding with markets in ways that did not exist even in crypto markets 5 years ago.

I watch, holding my breath, as my U.S. congress meets regularly to let us know they suddenly realized that stablecoins are a thing and that no one should ever access one without a RealID upgraded to their smart phone.

Which brings us around to the topic of discussion.

We are all crypto. Let that be clear, both to the BTCMaxi and the wackadoos embracing lord Craig Wright and his BS....... V. lol I may be a bit harsh, forgive me a little levity.

Let me work in some rhymes; Whether it is Tether, or trusty BTC, we are at least on the same page that the market includes all things blockchain, all things tied to the underlying cryptography, and some form or another of these distributed networks operating under recorded transacting liquidity.

Here's where the paths divide.

Truly, there are maximalists for every single coin project.

Some come with more deeply held beliefs than others, and some are simply there because of the pump. Bitcoin has been around the longest, and has had the most to prove over the years, with Ether a close second and Litecoin, who just sits in the shadows being important without causing a stir (real privacy coming right around the corner with LTC btw). Years matter, bc as hard as it is to fathom, these blockchains are processing transactions day and night, 24/7. There are no weekends, there are no holidays.

The underlying 'thing' I want to cover in this little thought-post (and oh yeah, there are others on the way), is that there is in fact a real divide, and a real gap to be bridged, but it doesn't necessarily mean what everyone in their camps believes. First, the legitimate arguments thrown across the bough.

The biggest rift right now is between ETH and BTC. True believers of the Bitcoin camp see systemic issues coming for PoS, which may be true or not. Part of the issue there, is that Vitalik himself has doubled around on cryptically stating that there can be decentralization issues with PoS that are still only theoretically resolved, which I suspect is a real reason for delays. They see tight correlation to globalist regulatory interest in protecting Ether, which is strange at best, worrisome if taken for face value. Because Vitalik rightly represents the global thinking of people in the younger age group as they have been groomed to believe the world works without a deep historical context, and such there are ideological and moral, not just political, reasons that people should be skeptics in a healthy manner, while simultaneously realizing that he's created something that can just as likely fuel an unintentional war of all society as it is possible to host a few billion dollars of pictures of apes. You decide- lol.

The ETH camp looks somewhat sideways and backwards at Bitcoin, partly with fondness for the "thanks for getting us this far, but you should stay in your lane with that whole 'digital gold'" thing, and partly out of respect for the fact that ETH has had a much bumpier road as it pertains to things with which it was believed to be far more advanced; namely in dealing with faster, cheaper (hehe) transactions and massive programmable capabilities.

Both camps miss an important point that is being somewhat resolved FOR them, which is the actual original idea sitting in between both projects; "electronic peer-to-peer cash". Both of the giants require layer 2 solutions to scale upwards, and though we are seeing interest by millions of people now, and faster on-chain wallet growth- faster than any time in our brief history, L2s are barely being touched at the rate I would expect. If I did have the venture capital to dive in somewhere, I would absolutely tear it up with something like the Lightning Network- the world is ripe for a decentralized L2 solution that could force Visa and Mastercard to rethink their existence (they are, btw entering the cryptosphere within 2 years).

There's so much to say here, but I don't want to leave these long ponderings just lingering out there without a real point. Also, I don't want to do some lame Rodney King reference "can't we all just get along?" because on some fundamental levels, we shouldn't.

There is a purity to Bitcoin. What seems simple continues to baffle the most brilliants minds, which is why we tend to have so many more books being published on the topic and individuals like Michael Saylor tearing through the fabric of brilliance to apply engineering and physics analogies to Bitcoin's excellence. What is seen by many as a pioneer being outrun by 'new' tech, we see a constant flow of new tech facing hacks, bridge theft, consensus overtakes, bad management, bad governance, and oftentimes just silly white papers that simply say "woof woof" lol.

There is a difference between all of the crypto world, and Bitcoin, because... there is a difference between ALL of crypto... and Bitcoin.

Having said that, programmability is fascinating. Stablecoins built on top of a network are incredibly useful. Staking, lending pools, decentralized ETH trading protocol, and numerous economic experiments with platform coins, burns to increase or manipulate market value, underlying assets used to represent real estate, gambling, you name it; crypto has it.

The Bitcoin maximalist sees themselves as guardians of purity, and for very good reason. Maximalists of other projects think there needs to be more... or simply believes that each project can take its place in the market. I personally believe that a large market is a healthy market, but underestimating Bitcoin's superiority and necessity as an underlying pairing at market, use across borders, and other elements is something that... in truth... if a person disagrees with, it tends to be because of lack of research or a lightbulb moment that has yet to occur.

A fundamentally accurate underlying reason behind the BTC-Maxi's stubborness, is something the crypto world really should come to understand. The world moving forward quickly, with wealth starting to bump up against Bitcoin's scarcity model, is a transitional, pivotal time that is only going to happen once. People are counting on Bitcoin in ways that cannot be compared elsewhere. One can point to bored apes and new staking projects, but they do in fact come and go briskly with the main underlying value point towards the pump. What, you think that's an insult? I love the pump! I tend to avoid anything that could leave me stuck indefinitely, but I think anyone that wants to play with fire and have fun should do as they please, as long as they truly understand the risk. But, the flash and fads are things that seem to be cyclical with the youth. People who have not fully burned in to understand a fine line with hype, shilling, and lasting value, will tend to get caught up in "xyz is going to be THE biggest innovation" and in a month it's "abc". Trust me, I'm not saying this as an insult. There have been probably 7 different major independent projects that were "guaranteed" to be the gaming asset token, right? Do we have a multi-billion dollar standard? No. But meanwhile, Bitcoin continues to do what it does as billionaires and countries quietly stockpile. It's the things bringing very little attention, that are building future wealth as likely as anything one could count on in today's environment.

The discussions or arguments can go on for a long time. I've done the exact same thing, and that is why I am here to tell you- keep following the rabbit hole, and if you are in search of the truth, you will find what much more brilliant people than myself have discovered, that Bitcoin represents something complete in many ways like the simplicity of a sphere; absolute, pristine, economically on precise course.

What the Bitcoin maxi needs to realize, now, is that sticking fingers in ears, shutting eyes and yelling "lahlahlahlahlah!" very loudly, does not make the world of crypto go away. As much as I sympathize, even empathize with the spirit of the maxi, the truth is that Bitcoin benefits other markets, and other markets do actually benefit Bitcoin. In the end, it is necessary for Bitcoin, Litecoin and Ethereum adoption to take hold to the masses, as much as some stablecoin options. Despite a lot of confusion, a jagged road, and a sometimes questionable leadership, ETH is here, is still doing what it does, and thousands of projects that rely on it are still operating as needed. There is room for a cash system to act better as store of value, just as much as there is room for a world computer to act more like a staking and platform system that also runs stable cash alternatives. It's funny how the reality of both camps sits somewhere in between.

Notice I haven't even touched on XRP, Doge, Shib and a few others?

The thing is, the XRP camp is fanatically loyal, but until something changes, the only thing they can really focus on at all is being stuck in the SEC vortex. Remittance and platform operability with banks ticks a lot of people off, to say "it ain't crypto, and they wanna play with the enemy". Yeah, I get it, but it trades like crypto. It sits there in the list with Tether and Bitcoin on most exchanges (that didn't can it).

Doge, with its wildly enthusiastic fans and Shib and Baby and all the rest, we have an entirely different story. Elon speaks, and he turns to run to a safe place to laugh hysterically that he has the power to move billions of dollars of nothingness around, before he then thinks about the ramifications of a few million people who think their Doge is supposed to be worth $2. What we have in the meme camp is people who are learning a steep curve on economics and the fundamental rule "buy the rumor, sell the news" as they largely ignore that an anti-scarcity economic model designed as a joke against the establishment is going to make it very hard to have a winning asset. If it is overhauled, it proves the point; if the asset can be altered to that extent, it holds zero value as something to hold, especially if it is supposed to represent a form of decentralization.

I'll wrap this up, as I'm sure you breath a sigh of relief, unless you left the "TLDR" train depot 5 paragraphs ago.

There is more to learn from every project that is out there. Like any emerging industry, the majority of the market is going to fail, and a few will rise to the top, and a few new players will continue to circle around doing interesting things. The majority of the world's wealth is likely about to become digitized in vastly differing ways, but a solid trillion dollars is most likely going to land in the fight over truly scarce, operable liquidity. That requires people around the world with skin in the game, and not an experiment in theoreticals and staking. In this sense, there is a house of cards solely dependent on certain elements of Bitcoin remaining in place and pioneering the legislative 'crap' all of this is about to have to face.

As we watch the space evolve and grow, I'll be attacking every angle, challenging every paradigm, maximalizing the good reasons for maxi's, while embracing the fact that there is a world out there that is going to innovate in interesting new ways regardless of what stern loyalty suggests. The question, is whether the majority of that wacky future tech stuff is actually a good thing. Many believe so. I will continue forth testing the complex underlying economic fundamentals and the global impact of what these projects do to the geo-political landscape.

And on that long-winded note, a tired but inspired Crypto Gordon Freeman, appreciative of his readership, until next time... for now... out.