This is an opinion piece by Tim Niemeyer, co-host of the Lincolnland Bitcoin Meetup.
Bitcoin maximalists had a one-year whirlwind. To be intimidated by the recent price drop to be seemingly prophetic ringers of the dumpster fire that is “crypto,” much of what has been written in the mainstream remains net negative. What is concerning is that their centralized and authoritarian counterparts (referred to here as fiat maximalists) somehow maintain an air of superiority in the mainstream. Curiously, bitcoin maxis and fiat maxis have similarities in their structure. But How? ‘Or’ What they each try to achieve their goal, this is where they differ significantly.
As a child of early gaming systems, I loved the “Street Fighter” and “Mortal Kombat” series. I would even consider myself a formidable “Tekken” opponent. From these experiences, I often frame real-world comparisons using the “pick your fighter” paradigm. Whether I’m choosing which side of a debate has the best arguments, which ideology offers the optimal outcome, or which strategy is best suited to a game, I end up creating a mental list of attributes from which I can best choose my action plan. .
So what would it look like to measure bitcoin maxes against fiat maxes? Does any party have a stronger argument? Does one ideology yield optimal results over the other? Or is it simply that a strategy is better suited to win in “the game” of monetary dominance? Let’s compare…
Structurally similar
Shinobi recently defined bitcoin maxis as those who focus on bitcoin, share critiques of other technologies, and consistently preach the virtues of bitcoin. Stephan Livera defines Bitcoin maximalism as “the vision that we will live on a bitcoin standard…” and that “maximalists clearly want to distinguish Bitcoin from ‘crypto’.” A potential framing of the toxic aspects of Bitcoin maximalism could be those that further preach on the spectrum of decentralized (versus centralized), individualistic (versus collectivist), and laissez-faire (versus authoritarian), often in confrontational and controversial ways.
Conversely, when we apply these terms to fiat maxis, we can begin to see common themes. They focus on fiat currencies, criticize bitcoin and pseudo-competing technologies, and constantly preach the virtues of the almighty dollar or similar coercive currencies. The fiat maxi maintains the idea that we will all continue with the fiat standard. They also try to bundle bitcoin and “crypto”. The toxic aspects of fiduciary maximalism tend to be those further along the spectrum of centralized (versus decentralized), collectivist (versus individualist), and authoritarian (versus laissez-faire). They are the ones who want you to eat insects, live in a pod and, like the World Economic Forum States“have nothing” and “be happy”.
Against these categorisations, it is easy to see how similar we all are; we all want what we want the way we want it. We’re not that different, you and me. We are two sides of the same coin! Time to start singing “Kumbaya”? No? Well, although bitcoin and fiat maxis are structurally similar when it comes to their monetary systems, How? ‘Or’ What they go about getting there, that’s where they contrast sharply.
Striking contrasts
“GFYis a common anthem of the toxic Maxi Bitcoin. If that makes you feel uncomfortable, pause for a moment, take a deep breath, and challenge yourself to figure out why that’s not such a bad thing.
Comments like these are overt in nature, which is a feature and not a bug. Tomer Strolight wrote “That thing that some people see as a ‘bug’ in bitcoin that they call ‘toxicity’ is actually the virtue of integrity.” Most GFY-like comments are preceded by those attacking Bitcoin in hypocritical or misguided ways; toxic bitcoin maxis draw a line in the sand. Strolight other offers the concept of “principled toxicity,” which he sees as an “intolerance of what Bitcoiners see as fatal compromises for Bitcoin.” This includes giving up on decentralization, solid engineering, or security, all in exchange for adopting one form or another.
If something I value is attacked, I want to know that people around me are ready to help defend it. Additionally, personal growth occurs when there is a solid foundation to build on. If I’m around people who are willing to tell me the truth, I’m more likely to make wise decisions. As strange as it may sound, GFY is sincere; Bitcoin maxis let the intended recipient know that they are full of it and will not tolerate anything less than the truth, which is similar to the truth provided by Bitcoin’s consensus algorithm.
Personally, my BS detector has improved considerably since I started studying the virtues of Bitcoin. While it is a # of 1 observation, I have come across many similar anecdotes from Bitcoiners. That being said, it helps to hold your ground while calmly calling out someone’s inconsistencies in a constructive way. We should all strive to achieve Michael Saylorits ability to maintain a positive, collaborative, illustrative and welcoming environment.
Contrast all of this with the secretive nature of the toxic fiat maximalist. It is the people who engage in this George Orwell called it “doublespeak” language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts or reverses the meaning of words. Common to the toxic maxi fiat, this language does not demonstrate integrity. It is often used in a divisive way in order to gain more control; it is insidious in nature.
Whether it be Nancy Pelosi’s Obscurity “we need to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it” comments Elizabeth Warren’s “shady faceless group of super coders” all of these are just word salad trying to coerce the public into adopt a pre-approved mindset; it’s obscuring optics. Nothing they say offers solid truths; it is hot air meant to inflate their perceived sense of power. Words are weapons they wield to influence public perception. At least Agustin Carsten was direct when he said that with central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), “the central bank(s) will have absolute control over the rules and regulations.”
So seriously, kudos to you for that.
Choose your fighter
It’s time to choose your fighter. Who do you want to partner with? Someone who has a principled approach and provides a clear conception of reality (regardless of political correctness) or a blacksmith with the intent to deceive? Someone who wants to allow you to be you (regardless of what “you” means) or someone who will try to influence others who don’t share their view of what should be?
In a strange way, the preferred monetary medium is irrelevant (at least in the vacuum of this framing). What is relevant are the outcomes of human behavior apparently created by each system. I often wonder how big the effect of the chosen monetary system is on the individuals within that system. It’s like bitcoin is a coercion function for facts while fiat is a coercion function for lies.
This fight continues to play out on the company’s main stage. I believe it is imperative not only to choose the side of truth and reason, but also to share these facts with those you love. A bottom-up, grassroots approach is the ethical way to achieve consensus. Where fiat maxis will coerce you with their doublespeak to continually create their ruling class heritage in their image, bitcoin maxis will continue to authentically uphold truth and reason.
Bitcoin maxis are the antithesis of fiat maxis; Bitcoin maxis exude integrity, sincerity and truthfulness while fiat maxis exhibit corruption, artificiality and equivocation. Bitcoin is to signal what fiat is to noise. In a head-to-head match, I pick the Bitcoin maxes hands down, every time. Good ideas don’t require strength. Adoption is increasing. Our time will come. The good news is Bitcoin is for everyone. Except you, Craig.
This is a guest post by Tim Niemeyer. The opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.
