It feels like Bitcoin has finally crossed the Rubicon into the mainstream both a triumph and a tragedy.
Walking around the conference this year, you could easily mistake it for a fintech summit or SaaS expo in Vegas. Same blazers, same VC pitch decks, same awkward networking energy. The suitcoiners outnumber the cypherpunks by 100:1.
On one hand, this is what we fought for: global legitimacy, serious capital, institutional attention.
On the other, something’s been lost in translation. The raw edge, the revolutionary energy, the sense that we were building something against the system not polishing it up to sell it back to the system.
Bitcoin doesn’t feel quite as dangerous anymore.
It feels… professional. Predictable. “Respectable,” even.
Maybe that’s just the mask Bitcoin wears while it continues hollowing out the old world from within.
Either way, the vibe has shifted.
Bitcoin as Digital Gold vs. P2P Cash:
The narrative around Bitcoin has shifted significantly. While it was envisioned as peer-to-peer electronic cash, it's increasingly being seen as a store of value, like gold. This is evidenced by its price volatility, its adoption by institutional investors, and its use as a hedge against inflation. The focus has moved away from everyday transactions.
Reserves and Distribution:
Personal cold wallets act as individual reserves. It highlights the concentration of Bitcoin ownership. Im concerned that by the time mass adoption by peers occurs, most Bitcoin will be held by governments, corporations, and early adopters, leaving less for the general public. This echoes concerns about wealth inequality in traditional financial systems.
The Role of Governments and Corporations:
These entities are now heavily involved in Bitcoin. Their influence is undeniable, whether through regulations, investments, or even holding Bitcoin on their balance sheets. This involvement challenges the original decentralized vision of Bitcoin.
Scarcity and the Hard Cap:
Bitcoin's hard cap, while intended to create scarcity, could backfire. It might allow those who accumulate Bitcoin early on to exert undue influence, effectively replicating the centralized control of traditional finance. This is a valid concern. If a small group controls a significant portion of the Bitcoin supply, they could manipulate the market or restrict access for others.
The Missed Opportunity for Change:
Occupy Wall Street and the pursuit of Bitcoin ETFs, SBRs, etc highlights the tension between systemic change and mainstream adoption. While ETFs etc can increase accessibility, they also integrate Bitcoin into the existing financial system, potentially diluting its revolutionary potential. The concern is that this integration appears to reinforce existing power structures rather than dismantling them as intended.