Bitcoin, born as a response to the 2008 crisis, is a blend of technology with the ability to transmit value without intermediaries. The early adopters of this technology were those who understood the technical complexities expressed in Satoshi's white paper. The barrier to entry was high; much of what is addressed in the white paper involves game theory problems (double spend, generals dilemma, etc.) At the same time, the complexities of running a node and mining were significant, whereas today the mining sector is already commoditized.
Bitcoin as a flag and blockchain as a foundation propose a paradigm shift in an issue of extreme sensitivity for the world and individuals: money.
The pioneers (OGs) who mined, invested, and promoted this technology in its early years became new global leaders in an emerging sector. This technology, which has the potential to offer transparency, traceability, individual sovereignty, and even a new global economic system, is now in what could be considered a stagnation of adoption.
With the DYOR (do your own research) adoption by the curious and bold reaching its limit, today the growth margin for “voluntary adoption” is insignificant for any company looking to grow, as all compete for the same clientele.
Why would an average citizen change their financial order for another?
How can they be convinced or shown the benefits and principles of a significant life change when their real problems are different?
For those of us who understand the principles, it’s a no brainer, but for 90% of the world, the need for change is not so clear. People want simple, low-friction solutions and do not want to study and risk capital with the possibility of losing money to adopt a new economic system.
The leaders in this sector are typically individuals with great capacity in hard skills; they are technicians, brilliant minds with exemplary focus and work ethic. Qualities that have made them reference points in the sector, with big projects and personal finances that align with those virtues.
The nature of this growth has fostered an ecosystem centered on builders (in slang, programmers) with a strong tendency to believe that everything can be solved with better software. The world is made up of human beings, and humans are not computers, but respond to emotions, connections, interests, and vices—some more selfish and others more generous. What is computable has not yet been achieved.
In addition, leaders have not achieved unity among themselves to establish agreements on their sectoral objectives, meaning that the technocratic fantasy has encountered the same “problem”: human beings.
The prevailing social game in the West is democracy, a system that (like any) has generated its white blood cells. The incentives of power are not always aligned with the well-being, sovereignty, and freedom of individuals.
Thus, the revolutionary spirit of these early explorers has encountered a brake: they have not managed to carry out a financial coup nor restructured business social orders, nor modified the political system. The tools are there, but the qualities needed for this phase of the revolution are not merely technical.
The question is how to bring the benefits of this technology to the vast number of people who currently do not enjoy it, which will require sitting down with the public sector and traditional private sector, harmonizing incentives, and generating transition processes. In summary, doing politics.
To do politics, one must first abandon ideological jihadism, understand that it is not a zero-sum game, and grasp that, as Perón said, politics is the art of persuasion. Persuasion requires translators, people who can speak both languages, understand the symbols, forms, and incentives of both sides, in order to create a story of joint growth.
It is essential that OGs understand that the qualities that have built the foundations of a generational change require an update, and that this new wave needs individuals with different qualities and complementary objectives.
To achieve the goal of a systemic change, we need, so to speak, a new kind of infantry.
Comments