-
@ r4f4_
2024-09-11 18:49:09Recently, a heated discussion emerged following a well-known influencer's announcement of their collaboration with a prominent financial institution to offer a Bitcoin custody product. This raised a few eyebrows, especially given that this influencer, who happens to be the author of a highly regarded book in the Bitcoin space, seems to have shifted away from Bitcoin’s core ethos of individual sovereignty and self-custody. While some expressed disappointment in the influencer, the conversation sparked a deeper debate on what is truly needed for the mass adoption of Bitcoin.
One participant argued that mass adoption will only occur when Bitcoin can be used seamlessly, without people even realizing they’re using it. They drew a comparison to how credit cards, Apple Pay, and Google Pay work today: most users don’t understand or care about the underlying technology. They simply use these systems because they are convenient and meet a need. The argument was that Bitcoin will reach mass adoption when it reaches a similar level of simplicity and invisibility.
On the surface, this sounds like a reasonable path toward adoption. But I see a fundamental problem with the idea that people shouldn't know or care about what they’re using. It's not about understanding the technical intricacies of Bitcoin’s code or blockchain mechanics—most people won’t ever need that level of knowledge. The issue lies in users not being aware of the risks associated with their actions, especially when using custodial solutions for holding Bitcoin.
If someone places their Bitcoin (or rather, IOUs representing Bitcoin) in a custodial service, it’s crucial that they understand the counterparty risks involved. These risks include asset inflation (as we’ve seen with fractional reserve banking), bank runs, transaction censorship, or even outright asset seizure. Unfortunately, many influencers don’t talk about these risks when promoting custodial solutions. Instead, they focus on the “to the moon” narrative, framing Bitcoin solely as a hard asset that will protect users in the event of some future apocalypse, often referred to as "hyperbitcoinization." This narrative, though appealing, leaves out crucial details about the very real risks of custody and the importance of self-sovereignty.
The distinction between custodial solutions and true Bitcoin ownership must be made crystal clear. Holding Bitcoin on an exchange or through a custodial product may expose you to Bitcoin’s price movements, but you don’t actually own Bitcoin in the purest sense. You own a promise of Bitcoin. And that distinction could make all the difference if things go wrong.
Self-custody, on the other hand, brings its own responsibilities but also delivers on the fundamental principles for which Bitcoin was created. Yes, it requires users to manage their own keys and bear the consequences if something goes wrong, but it provides the level of sovereignty that Bitcoin was designed to offer. There’s no counterparty to trust, no intermediary to confiscate or censor your assets, and no institution that can suddenly become insolvent and take your Bitcoin with it.
To me, Bitcoin adoption should be more organic. While it’s true that Bitcoiners benefit from a broader network of users, especially in terms of price stability and reduced manipulation, it’s even more important that new users understand what they’re getting into. It’s not enough for people to simply hold Bitcoin. They should be aware of the reasons why self-custody matters, the advantages of running a node, and even the importance of participating in mining.
In an ideal world, every group of friends or family would have an “Uncle Jim”—someone knowledgeable about Bitcoin who could help guide others through the complexities of self-custody, nodes, and mining. This grassroots approach would ensure that new adopters are well-informed, capable, and truly sovereign in their Bitcoin ownership.
Mass adoption is not just about making Bitcoin easy to use. It's about educating people on the trade-offs of convenience versus sovereignty, on the risks of custodial solutions, and on the long-term vision of Bitcoin as a tool for individual empowerment. We don’t need Bitcoin to become invisible to achieve adoption. We need it to become understood.