yael on Nostr: I like jklnz's way of approaching the discourse of “political vs. apolitical” ...
I like jklnz (npub15w9…yz93)'s way of approaching the discourse of “political vs. apolitical” bitcoin.
It is, of course, apolitical at a protocol level. Certain political factions have decided to (temporarily) embrace the “tech” in a certain regulated form.
My only additional thoughts are that, generally, at lot of this support is coming from people practicing oppositional politics. Some are marginal political figures in European nations, for example, and now definitely part of the Trump coalition.
It is a useful vehicle for gathering support against the status quo and signaling an openness to innovation, but we must also “police” how political actors with power describe Bitcoin — if only because it will determine how they will craft rules around it.
The more the discourse is NGU only, the focus will be on regulated financial institutions and governments buying bitcoin purely for debt mitigation or investment. ETFs and qualified custodians will be the main actors.
If the focus is self-custody and sovereign money, there will (hopefully) be sincere attempts at dismantling the regulatory barriers around bitcoin (Bank Secrecy Act, KYC rules, FATF, etc.)
I’m skeptical, however, that once political power is realized among those pushing “crypto” that Bitcoin will be as useful to them. That’s a risk. It’s easy to embrace Bitcoin policies in opposition, but once you’re in government, you have hundreds of interest groups pushing and pulling you and you’ll have to compromise. Liberty and sovereignty are often the first sacrificial lambs.
Hence, the “Bitcoin-only” political actors who champion *all* parts of satoshi’s innovation will be the more reliable, I would hope. Once certain political factions or actors practice the embrace of Bitcoin as a ENDS rather than the MEANS, that will be a more helpful sign.
Right now, there are just too many “pump influencers” who are trying to run the narrative. Their interest is mostly in boosting their follower count and some kind of egotism that is antithetical to bictoin.
It is, of course, apolitical at a protocol level. Certain political factions have decided to (temporarily) embrace the “tech” in a certain regulated form.
My only additional thoughts are that, generally, at lot of this support is coming from people practicing oppositional politics. Some are marginal political figures in European nations, for example, and now definitely part of the Trump coalition.
It is a useful vehicle for gathering support against the status quo and signaling an openness to innovation, but we must also “police” how political actors with power describe Bitcoin — if only because it will determine how they will craft rules around it.
The more the discourse is NGU only, the focus will be on regulated financial institutions and governments buying bitcoin purely for debt mitigation or investment. ETFs and qualified custodians will be the main actors.
If the focus is self-custody and sovereign money, there will (hopefully) be sincere attempts at dismantling the regulatory barriers around bitcoin (Bank Secrecy Act, KYC rules, FATF, etc.)
I’m skeptical, however, that once political power is realized among those pushing “crypto” that Bitcoin will be as useful to them. That’s a risk. It’s easy to embrace Bitcoin policies in opposition, but once you’re in government, you have hundreds of interest groups pushing and pulling you and you’ll have to compromise. Liberty and sovereignty are often the first sacrificial lambs.
Hence, the “Bitcoin-only” political actors who champion *all* parts of satoshi’s innovation will be the more reliable, I would hope. Once certain political factions or actors practice the embrace of Bitcoin as a ENDS rather than the MEANS, that will be a more helpful sign.
Right now, there are just too many “pump influencers” who are trying to run the narrative. Their interest is mostly in boosting their follower count and some kind of egotism that is antithetical to bictoin.
quoting note145f…lptpIs #Bitcoin even apolitical? 🗣️
The network itself is—no doubt about it.
However, there should be a debate on how we can shape policy in our favor.
At least, those are my thoughts after falling down this rabbit hole.
https://youtu.be/cD3TfHNYlyA