I don't like Bitcoin maximalists. In fact, I strongly dislike them. If you can make sense of it, I am anti-maximalist. I am not a Bitcoin maximalist, nor a Hive maximalist. I don't consider myself a fitness maximalist or a follower of "junk living" either.
I have always valued diversity. Life is about embracing diversity and finding meaning in it. When someone restricts themselves to a single thing and declares it the best without considering any alternatives, it's like committing to that one thing for life...
Those individuals probably haven't experienced a long-term marriage or tried eating the same food every day. It is diversity that makes this planet and our society so magical, but Bitcoin maximalists don't seem to appreciate that.
Earlier today, I watched a short clip of Jack Mallers which was extracted from a longer interview hosted by Natalie Brunell, another Bitcoin maximalist. To me, this interview resembled two dogs sniffing each other's behinds...
There is no disagreement between these two, and in my view, disagreement is what has shaped our world. If the Hive community hadn't disagreed with Justin Sun's plans for Steem, Hive would not exist today.
Jack Mallers claimed that Bitcoin is the best form of money, the best digital savings option, the epitome of digital sovereignty, and so on... We are all familiar with this narrative by now. There is no second best. However, what these individuals fail to realize is that Bitcoin cannot solve all the problems they are trying to address. First and foremost, Bitcoin cannot compete with VISA in terms of payment capabilities, nor can it match DOGE as "a better currency."
So, what I am attempting to convey with this post is that the concept of finding the best blockchain and fixing all the world's flaws is fundamentally flawed. Such a thing does not exist. One could argue that Hive is superior to Bitcoin, but has anyone tested both networks at a large scale to see how they handle billions of users?
Well, maybe not billions, but we haven't yet reached a point where either of these blockchains has been tested with hundreds of millions of users. I'm not saying they won't work; we simply don't know...
What I do know for sure is that we should embrace diversity in the crypto world and focus more on how certain blockchains complement each other instead of pitting them against one another. Money is meant to be spent, in my opinion, but I don't see many maximalists spending their precious Bitcoin.
I bet they still prefer dollars in that regard. Why? Because you can't simply create more Bitcoin... When the supply is capped at 21 million coins, you're less inclined to spend a significant portion of your stash on coffee and pizza, knowing that its value will appreciate over time. You don't want to be the person who spent 10,000 bitcoins on 2 pizzas.
So, instead, people start using USDT or HBD, for example, whenever possible... Personally, I would rather have BTC in savings than USDT because, in my view, the value of the dollar keeps declining, but I wouldn't spend BTC either since its value in dollars continues to rise over time.
Therefore, I spend USDT and save the rest :)). I wish I could say I'm saving BTC for the future, but that's not really the case. However, I do see BTC as a better option for savings than USDT. Even Tether shares my viewpoint on this, as they announced yesterday that they will invest 15% of their monthly gains into BTC.
The world of crypto extends far beyond Bitcoin and Hive. The goal is to move beyond maximalism and cultivate a "growth-oriented mentality." While I could identify as a Hive maximalist, I am not one...
I recognize the value in Hive, just as I see value in Bitcoin and other blockchain projects. I agree with the maximalists' sentiment that the crypto world is saturated with poor-quality projects. However, it's important to acknowledge that Bitcoin cannot solve all the world's problems, and these interviews where maximalists simply praise one another do not contribute much.
What do you think?
Thanks for your attention,
Adrian
