I used to be a wholecoiner. But then HiveFest 4 happened and I went to Thailand when BTC was at around 8k USD and since then, I haven't had a whole coin. I am sitting at like 0.4 BTC that yields me weekly rewards because I staked them on morphswap.
Do I regret selling? Of course, I could have held to 50k per BTC - my initial goal when I bought the whole coin - and then rebought at 30k - my rebuy level set back when I bought it - and have a little under 2 whole coins, but back then I thought Hive would be worth tons more by now and going to HiveFest in Asia, no matter how expensive it would be, sounded like a good investment.
I was wrong, I was so wrong it hurts. I keep believing in Hive, and Hive keeps failing to deliver. But I won't turn my back on you, don't worry. I still have like 30% of my portfolio invested in Hive and some of the most attractive Layer2 tokens - Leo Finance included, of course.
But anyway, I was never a Bitcoin maximalist, maybe because I got into crypto through Hive and not through the ideology of bitcoin. In fact I became a libertarian and a freedom fighter - from the couch that is - thanks to Hive, and then I got to explore the cryptocurrency environment and identified with some of the pillars and values it stands for.
But one thing I just can't get behind of, is Bitcoin maximalism and its toxicity.
Toxic bitcoin maximalism refers to a belief held by some individuals in the cryptocurrency community that bitcoin is the only true cryptocurrency, and that all other cryptocurrencies are inferior or scams, this belief is usually held by OGs and those who bought Bitcoin very early. Of course they don't want altcoins to thrive because they take value away from the OG token. Bitcoin maximalism is often accompanied by aggressive and dismissive attitudes towards individuals who hold different opinions and if you don't believe me, go spend 5 minutes in crypto twitter and come back to finish reading this post. BTC maxi can be harmful to the wider cryptocurrency community, as it creates division and can discourage newbies from getting involved., but it also harms the reputation of bitcoin and altcoins because it perpetuates negative stereotypes associated with crypto.
I mean, diversity is our strength, right?
Sorry, I got carried away by Merkel's propaganda that is killing Europe, but regarding crypto, diversity is a good thing, and different cryptocurrencies have different strengths and weaknesses that make them suitable for different use cases. Bitcoin doesn't solve anything, and Bitcoin is limited both in terms of blockchain capability and use cases.
Let's diverge a little bit and talk about El Salvador
I know, Chad Bukele made a huge move and so far it hasn't paid back; investing a large portion of a country's treasury into a single asset, particularly a highly volatile and speculative one like bitcoin, is a high-risk/huge reward strategy. If the value of bitcoin were to decrease significantly just like it has done for more than a year now, it could result in significant financial losses for the country and as we've seen, a lot of social instability. Was Buekele's Bitcoin adoption driven by political or ideological reasons instead of by sound financial decision-making?
I have no idea, but his involvement in crypto brought other players - and enemies - to the table. His BTC public involvement was like the Avengers telling the universe they are ready for bigger battles - sorry for the cringe comparison, I have to appeal to my 13yr old audience. Another concern is that El Salvador's adoption of Bitcoin as legal tender could also have negative consequences on the country's economy, particularly in terms of its monetary policy. For instance, it could lead to an increase in price volatility, a decrease in economic growth, and a loss of confidence in the country's currency. And let's not forget about the question of security and regulatory compliance. In order to use Bitcoin as a legal tender, the government should have a proper infrastructure in place to ensure the security of transactions and compliance with existing regulations.
And now let's deep dive into politics
The fact that politicians and celebrities are attending bitcoin conferences is significant because it indicates that they are becoming more educated and interested in the technology and its potential impact on the economy and society. Their presence at these conferences shows that they are taking the time to understand the technology and its potential uses, rather than simply dismissing it as a fad or a speculative investment. Oddel Beckham, Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, Kim Kardashian, Justin Bieber... do I need to keep naming random entertainers?
Politicians attending bitcoin conferences is particularly noteworthy because it suggests that they are open to exploring the potential use of blockchain technology in government and public services. For example, they may be interested in using blockchain technology to increase transparency and efficiency in voting systems - lol, I know, but I had to mention it and give them the benefit of the doubt -, or to create new types of digital identities for citizens.
You gotta give these celebrities a this same benefit. It's not like they are doing it only for the money. They may be attending bitcoin conferences as signal that they are interested in exploring the use of blockchain technology in entertainment and media. For example, they may be interested in using blockchain technology to create new ways of distributing and monetizing content, or to create new types of fan engagement. Or to get richer than fuck, like Kim Kardashian - is that last name even spelt correctly?
Political tides have been pretty clear over the past 30 years, but it's worth noting that there has been a growing divide in the political views towards Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies between red states and Europe. In red states, particularly in the United States, there has been a growing trend of politicians expressing support for Bitcoin and blockchain technology. This is in contrast to Europe, where politicians have generally been more skeptical and have expressed concerns about the potential negative impacts of cryptocurrencies on the economy and society.
In the US, being pro-bitcoin or blockchain is seen as a requirement for politicians in red states, as it is seen as a way to align themselves with the growing number of businesses and individuals who are interested in the technology. This is because these states have a large number of businesses, individuals and institutions that are either directly or indirectly involved in the crypto economy, and politicians are trying to appeal to them by expressing their support for the crypto economy.
On the other hand, many European politicians have turned anti-cryptocurrency, due to concerns about the potential negative impacts of cryptocurrencies on the economy and society. This is partly because of the lack of regulation, the high volatility, and the potential for money laundering, terrorist financing, and fraud. Additionally, European politicians also tend to be more skeptical of the idea of decentralized currencies, and they prefer to rely on the traditional centralized financial system.
This situation is just a mere reflection of the different perspectives and priorities of politicians in these regions. While some politicians see the potential benefits of the technology and want to support its growth, others are more focused on the potential risks and negative impacts. But if we are crude about it, they will only support bitcoin if they think they can make money out of this as a much bigger scheme.
Back to Toxic Maxis
In the early days of cryptocurrency, bitcoin was the dominant player in the market and many people were only interested in buying and holding bitcoin. However, as the cryptocurrency market has grown and matured, people have started to look for other options within the crypto world. This is partly because of the limitations of bitcoin, such as slow transaction times and high fees, and partly because of the emergence of new and innovative projects that offer different features and benefits.
One of the main reasons people are looking for other options inside the crypto world is because of the limitations of Bitcoin as a payment system, such as the slow confirmation time and high fees. This has led to the development of alternative cryptocurrencies, such as Litecoin and Bitcoin Cash, that offer faster confirmation times and lower fees.
People are also looking for other options in the crypto world due to the emergence of new projects and platforms that offer different features and benefits. For example, Ethereum is a blockchain platform that enables the development of decentralized applications and smart contracts. This has led to the creation of a whole new ecosystem of DeFi projects that offer new financial services.
Another reason is the emergence of privacy-focused cryptocurrencies like Monero and Zcash that offer greater financial privacy and security compared to Bitcoin.
Now we have Morphswap, that is very close to allowing DeFi swaps from XMR to any other EVM chain and the Bitcoin chain. Can you imagine how much crypto is going the go through Morphswap's protocol? I'm so glad I bought a ton at a cheap price. I'm almost tempted to imagine myself drinking mojitos in Bali in a few years from now.
But anyway, the crypto world has evolved significantly over the past few years and has become much more diverse and complex. As a result, people are now looking for other options within the crypto world that align with their specific needs and interests.
But what about Libertarianism?
The libertarian community and the cryptocurrency toxic community share some similarities but also have some important differences.
One similarity is that both communities are politically and socially decentralized. Libertarians value individual freedom and minimal government intervention in the economy and personal lives, while the cryptocurrency community values decentralized technology and the ability for individuals to have control over their own assets and transactions.
Another similarity is that both communities are known for having a strong sense of community and identity. Libertarians often identify strongly with the libertarian movement and its principles, while the cryptocurrency community often identifies strongly with the technology and its potential to disrupt traditional systems and institutions.
However, there are also some key differences between the two communities. One difference is that the libertarian community tends to have a more nuanced and diverse set of views on economic and political issues, while the cryptocurrency toxic community can be more extreme and dogmatic in their beliefs.
Another difference is that the libertarian community is often associated with a more intellectual and academic approach to politics and economics, while the cryptocurrency toxic community is often associated with a more populist and emotional approach.
Also, while the libertarian community tends to focus on the political and economic benefits of decentralization, the cryptocurrency toxic community can be more focused on the financial gain and could be more aggressive in their approach towards others who disagree with them.
Are both communities toxic? Am I part of two of the most toxic environments even if I'm not a true libertarian or a bitcoin maxi?
If the trend of bitcoin maximalists growing and the number of crypto holders decreasing continues, there are two potential scenarios that could play out.
The pessimistic scenario is that the increasing dominance of bitcoin maximalists within the cryptocurrency community could lead to a more divisive and toxic environment. As bitcoin maximalists become more entrenched in their belief that bitcoin is the only "true" cryptocurrency, they may become increasingly dismissive and hostile towards other cryptocurrencies and their holders. This could lead to a decline in the overall growth and development of the cryptocurrency market, as well as a decline in the number of people who are interested in investing in and using cryptocurrencies.
The optimistic scenario is that the increasing dominance of bitcoin maximalists within the cryptocurrency community could lead to a more focused and efficient market. As bitcoin maximalists become more entrenched in their belief that bitcoin is the most valuable and reliable cryptocurrency, they may become more focused on increasing its adoption and use. This could lead to more investment and development in bitcoin-based technologies and services, as well as an increase in the overall value and stability of the cryptocurrency market. Additionally, the fact that Bitcoin is the most widely adopted and the oldest cryptocurrency could attract more institutional investors, and this could lead to more growth and stability in the crypto market overall.
Fortunately, trends can change and it's hard to predict the future. The crypto market is still relatively new, and these scenarios are just a possibility, but we must keep in mind that markets are unpredictable and that the cryptocurrency industry is still in its early stages of development.
The good thing is that most people have at least heard of bitcoin, whereas in the past, think 2014, many people were unaware of its existence. This represents a significant progress in terms of the mainstream awareness and acceptance of the technology.
In the early days of bitcoin, it was a relatively niche technology, known mainly to a small group of enthusiasts and early adopters. However, as the technology has grown and matured, it has become more widely known and accepted. This is partly due to the increasing media coverage of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, as well as the growing number of businesses and individuals who are becoming involved in the technology.
The increased awareness of bitcoin has also led to more people becoming interested in the technology and its potential uses. This has led to more businesses and organizations exploring the use of blockchain technology, as well as an increase in the number of people who are interested in investing in and using cryptocurrencies.
How can we avoid Toxic Maximalism?
Education is key to helping people understand the potential benefits of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, such as decentralization, security, and the ability to transfer value without the need for intermediaries. By providing people with accurate and unbiased information, they can make informed decisions about whether to invest in or use cryptocurrencies.
We need to educate people about the potential risks and downsides of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, such as volatility, lack of regulation, and the potential for fraud and hacking. By providing people with a balanced view of the technology, they can make more informed decisions about whether to invest in or use cryptocurrencies.
Another way to help Bitcoin adoption is by promoting its use cases and real-world applications. Bitcoin has been used for remittances, micropayments, and as a store of value, promoting these use cases can help people understand how the technology can benefit them in their daily lives.
A diversified portfolio is a key component of smart investing, and the same applies to investing in cryptocurrencies. According to some reports, 13% of crypto users hold only bitcoin, while the other 87% hold a diversified portfolio of different cryptocurrencies.
The decision to hold a diversified portfolio can have positive or negative results, depending on the performance of the individual assets in the portfolio and the market conditions. However, the free market will ultimately decide if the decision to hold a diversified portfolio was a good one, as the value of different cryptocurrencies will fluctuate based on supply and demand.
Holding a diversified portfolio can help mitigate the risks associated with investing in a single asset. For example, if the value of bitcoin were to decrease significantly, the impact on an investor's overall portfolio would be less severe if they also held other cryptocurrencies.
However, becoming an "only bitcoin" fanatic contradicts the idea of decentralization, as the point of decentralized economy is to have multiple options and not to have a centralized control on the economy. Bitcoin is just one of the many options available in the crypto world and it's important to have a diversified portfolio to avoid being too exposed to the risks of any one cryptocurrency.
We need to rebrand the term "Bitcoin toxic maximalist" because it has a negative connotation and can harm the reputation of Bitcoin and the wider crypto community. Instead, we can use a more neutral and inclusive term such as "Bitcoin enthusiasts" or "Bitcoin supporters" to describe those who are passionate about Bitcoin and its potential.
Let's be real, it's important to recognize that not all Bitcoin supporters are the same and the most influential Bitcoiners are not always the best examples when it comes to promoting the best ways to increase Bitcoin adoption. Some individuals may have different opinions and strategies for promoting adoption and it's important to be open to different perspectives and ideas.
To increase Bitcoin adoption, it's important to focus on educating people about the benefits and use cases of Bitcoin, as well as providing accurate and unbiased information. Additionally, it's important to promote the adoption of Bitcoin in real-world applications and use cases, such as micropayments, remittances, and as a store of value.
Bitcoin is a decentralized technology that is open to everyone, regardless of their political or ideological beliefs. The fact that Bitcoin is decentralized means that it is not controlled by any government, central bank or any institution, and this can be appealing to people from all political spectrums.
It's important to remember that in order for Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies to reach mass adoption, it's necessary to have a diverse group of people using and understanding the technology. Limiting the potential user base to one specific group of people can be detrimental to the growth and development of the crypto space.