The importance of ideology in the mind of the cryptocurrency investor. Governments: Enemies or Allies?
Generally speaking, it must be said that Bitcoin is primarily a citizen movement. Of course there are some theories that certainly speculate on the possibility that Satoshi Nakamoto could have actually been a government entity like the NSA or the CIA. However, despite the different conspiracy theories, for the purposes of this article, we accept the official version that Satoshi Nakamoto is anonymous acting on his own account.
That? As? And because? Bitcoin is code on a decentralized network of computers. Satoshi, using different cryptographic techniques, wrote a computer program that he later shared suggesting its usefulness. The idea was to use the program to form a network. And then use that network as a database to validate and record transactions in a decentralized way.
- Inflation: Why not reducing it further will not be so easy?
What is actually exchanged is information. The code is nothing more than a series of numbers and letters in a database. But Satoshi proposes that the code be used as money by assigning it a monetary value. In practice, what Satoshi actually created was a citizen coin. Was Satoshi an economist? How much did Satoshi know about money?
One could assume that it was more of a hobbyist programmer with some “economic beliefs” than anything else.. What economic ideas? Well, you don’t have to be a genius to know that there were libertarian, anarcho-capitalist and conservative influences seen from the Californian countercultural context. It is obvious that Satoshi was carried away by a current that was quite pro-technology, anti-statist and in favor of the gold standard.
Before Satoshi, others tried to create gold-inspired digital (citizen) currencies. However, due to various limitations (technical and non-technical), those projects did not take off much. I would say that the success of Bitcoin is not only due to its technological advances. Undoubtedly, it was a combination of factors. One of them was the rise of social media. And here we must specifically include the ability of social networks to create communities of common interest. So, Bitcoin became the pet project of a digital tribe made up primarily of developers, cryptographers, libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, and conservatives. Could Bitcoin have prospered so fast in another era?
Initially, Bitcoin was a citizen movement built on a libertarian, individualist, technophile, and anti-establishment narrative. What this digital tribe promotes, through social networks, is a kind of libertarian utopia. What is the libertarian utopia? Non-state intervention in the economy, free market fundamentalism, non-regulation, radical decentralization, the hard currency system, and classical liberalism. The libertarian utopia is opposed to the Keynesian progressivism of collectivist statism. Which implies that this utopia has enemies. Who is it? Governments, central banks, private banks, fiat money, the dollar and “Keynesian” economists.
- The scrutiny after FTX. What awaits us?
Of course, Bitcoin is also a speculative asset. And, over time, the non-idiosyncratic investor has become the vast silent majority of the community. The idiosyncratic bitcoiner dominates the narrative. But the non-idiosyncratic bitcoiner/investor dominates in numbers. A group makes itself felt on Twitter. The other group makes itself felt in the price action.
The configuration of this community has changed a lot over the years. Over the years, it has gained a lot of diversity. It is no longer a club of libertarians and anarcho-capitalists. Now we also have governments, banks and “Keynesians” buying BTC. Do all people buy BTC with a libertarian agenda? We well know that the vast majority don’t give a damn about all the libertarian paraphernalia that we hear so often on Twitter and YouTube. Bitcoin has become a speculative market. In reality, it is not a community of reformers or revolutionaries. Basically, it is a community of entrepreneurs, businessmen, traders, investors and speculators. Instead of a political party, we got Wall Street on steroids.
Now, El Salvador has adopted Bitcoin as legal tender. Which is not entirely unreasonable. In the past, countries have used gold as currency. They have used the currency of other countries as their currency. And that has been done for several reasons. So, I see no problem with a government formally recognizing a citizen currency and granting it official currency status. What is the problem?
Lor curious and debatable in any case would be that a libertarian, an anarcho-capitalist or an advocate of anti-statism becomes friends with authoritarian regimes for the simple fact that they are kind to Bitcoin. I mean, everyone who adopts Bitcoin is my good friend. And all his sins will be forgotten. And the libertarian utopia? What happened to non-state intervention in the economy?
Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with governments, banks, and people from all walks of life investing in Bitcoin.. In fact, I think it’s great. What actually seems outdated to me is the libertarian and militant narrative of the original community in its most radical and sectarian versions. The current Bitcoin is not the Bitcoin of Satoshi Nakamoto. Bitcoin has evolved and has become something else. In practice, Bitcoin is a digital asset that serves different purposes. Bitcoin today is more of an emerging market than a reform movement.
- Crowd Psychology: Why Do Markets Tend to Exaggerate?
I must confess that when buying BTC, it is not Satoshi and libertarians that I seek to please. In this case, my guide is self-interest. Can I grow financially with this? Does bitcoin enrich my life? Yes or no? And Satoshi’s opinions? They don’t interest me much.
Everyone who invests in Bitcoin is welcome, because that demand drives up the price. What suits me as an investor. Governments, banks, institutions or people of different ideologies. Everyone is welcome. Demand is demand. Governments adopting crypto? I think it’s great. Banks adopting crypto? Institutions adopting crypto? It also looks great to me.
It has always seemed to me a mistake to mix finances with politics. Losing money for ideology? Sacrifice profit for politics? I don’t believe it. Sand invest money to earn money. It is not invested to save the world. You have to comply with the laws. You have to follow the rules of the game. However, for an investor, his pocket is the priority. And all of his financial decisions must follow purely financial criteria. In matters of money, it is not a very good idea to lose the North hunting chimeras.
Disclaimer: The information and/or opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the views or editorial line of Cointelegraph. The information presented here should not be taken as financial advice or investment recommendation. All investment and commercial movement involve risks and it is the responsibility of each person to do their due research before making an investment decision.
It may interest you:
- Inflation: Why not reducing it further will not be so easy?
- The scrutiny after FTX. What awaits us?
- Crowd Psychology: Why Do Markets Tend to Exaggerate?
