After the crisis, reproaches always come. Between the ashes, she looks at the past with resentment. Victims and non-victims of the crisis begin to look for the culprits. And, in this world of political polarization, each extreme interprets the facts to suit its own cause. In many cases, you see what you want to see. And the narrative that justifies an ideal is adopted. The extreme right tends to defend paranoid individualism. The extreme left tends to defend totalitarian statism. And the moderate stance? And centrism? Okay, These are difficult times for the moderate center. Moderation doesn’t get many clicks in today’s world.
One of the main characteristics of extremism is thinking in absolutes. Let’s analyze, for example, this phrase: “Not your keys, not your coins.” Here we have a fallacy of equivocation that is often used for propagandist reasons. In this fallacious phrase, two different concepts are presented as equal. But, in reality, they are not the same. In this case, the concept “custody” is placed as a synonym for the concept “property”. But we well know that custody does not (necessarily) imply ownership. Here’s the semantic trick. The manipulative deception of the phrase.
Let’s think about credit. Credit, for example, is an asset to the creditor and a liability to the debtor. The creditor writes that money down on the list of your assets. And the debtor writes that money in the list of liabilities. However, the money is not in the hands of the owner of the asset.
Now let’s think about the landlord-tenant relationship. Suppose we go on vacation to a tropical island. For our enjoyment, we rented a vehicle and stayed in a hotel. Your keys, your vehicle? Your keys, your room? Obviously not. To think in these terms would be absurd. We know perfectly well that it is a temporary loan. What happens in case of non-payment or damage? Well, the money is lost. But that does not mean that custody is the property. What it really means is that one party breached the deal. The relationship is not without risk. And we cannot deny that.
If we go to a bank and deposit our money there, we are actually giving a loan. This loan is an asset to us and a liability to the bank. Why do we lend our money to a bank? Good because We think the business is beneficial. The bank offers us services and products that we need or want. The money is ours, but the money is in someone else’s custody.
What is a contract? A contract is an agreement of wills that can generate rights and obligations. Now, if one side breaches their part of the contract, the aggrieved party can go to court for justice. That is, if, for example, we give our money to the bank and the bank loses our money, we can turn to the competent authorities with the claim. In other words, we ask for the intervention of the State.
Of course, this solution does not satisfy the anti-estista current. So, autarky is proposed as an alternative. The matter goes something like this. The best coverage for the risk of breach of contract is not to have any contract with anyone. Don’t expect anything from anyone. Radical and self-sufficient individualism. Every man is an island. The money under the mattress. Gold in the garden. And the key to the wallet in the safe.
That way, no one steals from you. Nobody fails you. Nobody takes your money. “Not your keys, not your coins.” This phrase insinuates the following: If you give your keys to the other, surely the other will cheat you, he will steal or default on you. In other words, in this paranoia, giving your keys to a third party is practically throwing away your money. Only the self is trustworthy. what we have is the idiosyncrasy of the radical individualism of anarcho-capitalists. I live on my land. I grow my own food. I defend myself with my weapons. I am my own bank.
Self-custody is an option. But escrow services are also an option. Both solutions have their pros and cons. And this industry feeds on both solutions. The individual is free to choose what is best for him. You can leave for self-custody. You can leave for an escrow service. EITHER you can choose a mixed and combined solution. A part here. And another part there. It is not an absolute solution to the sound of the doctrine. But it is a practical solution.
The bankruptcy of FTX is not an argument in favor of self-custody. On Twitter, it has been used as an argument in favor, but it is not. Well we know that the paranoid autarkic solution of money under the mattress is not a panacea. People will continue to do business together. People will continue to make loans. People will continue to make deals with each other. Actually, andhis bankruptcy is an argument to demand better escrow services. It is an argument to demand best practices from exchanges.
Specialization and division of labor is as old as civilization. Not all of us know everything. Y If we don’t know something, we turn to an expert. If we get sick, we go to the doctor. If we want to travel to another continent, we use an airline. If we have a legal problem, we seek the advice of a lawyer. And so.
Trust in the expert is too often called into question in this world of social media. Why? Well, because tonow we are all experts. Y every bitcoiner is tempted to believe they are an expert in high finance after watching a couple of documentaries on YouTube and following a couple of influencers on Twitter. Why trust an expert? “The expert is me.”
The confident ignorance of amateur creates self-described “experts” out of thin air. A code becomes something more than a code. It becomes a movement. And that movement becomes an identity and a worldview. Suddenly, the truth of the tribe is the truth of the universe. And everyone who does not defend the truth of my tribe is my mortal enemy. The only expert is the expert of the tribe. If the so-called “expert” who doesn’t belong to my tribe, he is an evil conspirator. His words are deceit.
The militant bitcoiner rejects any centralized structure. The individual is the basic unit. And every meeting point must be technological. It cannot be a human organization. It must be a code, an algorithm, and a protocol. It’s technicality at its best. The individual is good. The technology is good. But the collective is bad. So, the collective must go through the technological to purify itself. Or, in crypto slang, the platform must be decentralized.
What if we lose the key? And the self-protection problems? These problems are faced with Spartan honor. Freedom is won with sweat and tears in the style of the Puritan ethic. Freedom is responsibility. The individual can do everything. He is responsible for everything. He doesn’t call 911. He pulls the guns on him and becomes Batman.
The thing is, not everyone wants to be Batman. And not everyone is an expert at everything. Fund managers are a solution for many. And it is valid. People have the right to put their money in an investment fund managed by a third party. It’s not the end of the world. There is everything in the villa of the Lord. We don’t all think alike. Without a doubt, financial institutions, despite the complaints of the most radical, will continue to play a very important role in the post-FTX era.
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:
Investments in crypto assets are not regulated. They may not be suitable for retail investors and the entire amount invested may be lost. The services or products offered are not directed or accessible to investors in Spain.