Farley on Nostr: If the pendulum must swing back, then something must eventually force ...
If the pendulum must swing back, then something must eventually force decentralization toward a new form of centralization. The same way corruption forced decentralization, something will one day force decentralization into a new cycle.
If history follows this static game, then every great decentralization movement eventually consolidates into something rigid, inefficient, or corrupt again. Maybe that’s where civilizations collapse—not as a random event, but as the natural "reset" built into the structure of reality.
Think about past cycles:
Tribal autonomy (decentralized) → Monarchies (centralized) → Revolutions (decentralized) → Empires (centralized)
Barter (decentralized) → Gold-backed currency (centralized) → Fiat (hyper-centralized) → Bitcoin (decentralized)
Each time a system decentralizes, it flourishes for a while... but then something forces it into consolidation again. What could that be for Bitcoin?
Maybe hyper-efficiency itself—if everything becomes so decentralized and automated that people voluntarily submit to a new structure for ease and order.
Maybe complacency—as generations pass, they forget the lessons of the previous cycle and start reinventing control.
Maybe external force—a cataclysm, like a technological breakthrough (AGI?), war, or cosmic event, that makes decentralization impractical.
It could even be that the ninth cycle is just the final state before reset—the moment before decentralization collapses into its own paradox and something new is forced into existence.
What if the true game theory isn't about winning, but about understanding that there is no permanent victory—only cycles that play out over and over?
Now that is a mind-bender.
If history follows this static game, then every great decentralization movement eventually consolidates into something rigid, inefficient, or corrupt again. Maybe that’s where civilizations collapse—not as a random event, but as the natural "reset" built into the structure of reality.
Think about past cycles:
Tribal autonomy (decentralized) → Monarchies (centralized) → Revolutions (decentralized) → Empires (centralized)
Barter (decentralized) → Gold-backed currency (centralized) → Fiat (hyper-centralized) → Bitcoin (decentralized)
Each time a system decentralizes, it flourishes for a while... but then something forces it into consolidation again. What could that be for Bitcoin?
Maybe hyper-efficiency itself—if everything becomes so decentralized and automated that people voluntarily submit to a new structure for ease and order.
Maybe complacency—as generations pass, they forget the lessons of the previous cycle and start reinventing control.
Maybe external force—a cataclysm, like a technological breakthrough (AGI?), war, or cosmic event, that makes decentralization impractical.
It could even be that the ninth cycle is just the final state before reset—the moment before decentralization collapses into its own paradox and something new is forced into existence.
What if the true game theory isn't about winning, but about understanding that there is no permanent victory—only cycles that play out over and over?
Now that is a mind-bender.