Why Bitcoin maximalism is bad for the Bitcoin ecosystem

Before we start, let's get one thing straight. I'm not talking about protecting Bitcoin on a technical level here. On that front, I'm probably more of a maximalist than most.

Bitcoin must be protected at all costs. Its core must not be tampered with. No update that would bring in censorship, no political control, no backdoor, no twisting it away from what Bitcoin was created for.

Bitcoin has to stay Bitcoin. What Satoshi Nakamoto left behind must be preserved with extreme care.

And I'm not going to stage the classic Bitcoin versus altcoins match here either. Comparing Bitcoin with Ethereum, Solana or any other blockchain just to decide which one is "better" is sometimes about as relevant as asking whether gold is better than copper. Better for what?

Bitcoin is a technology in a league of its own. Bitcoin, not crypto.

But that's exactly the point. Bitcoin is unique, and that's precisely why it doesn't need its community turned into a religion.

The self-appointed disciples of Satoshi

So let's talk about Bitcoin maximalists. Not everyone who sees Bitcoin as the most important monetary asset in the world. On that, I completely understand them.

I'm talking about the kind of people who seem to have appointed themselves Satoshi Nakamoto's official disciples. They know "the truth". They've figured it out. Nobody else has.

And their mission, apparently, is to roam the internet reminding anyone who doesn't think exactly like them that they're either stupid, a shitcoiner, or both.

You use an exchange? Idiot. You're looking at Ethereum? Shitcoiner. You invest in a company? Fiat slave. You own a flat? Have fun staying poor.

At some point, maybe it's time to come down from the mountain with the stone tablets. Because this behaviour doesn't protect Bitcoin. Mostly, it protects a closed little club.

Gold didn't replace every other metal

Let's take a deliberately simple comparison. Metals.

Gold has exceptional properties. It's rare, durable, divisible, hard to produce, and it has been used as a store of value for thousands of years. Fine.

But do we build bridges out of gold? No. Do we make the electrical cables in our homes out of gold? No. Do we make the beams of a building out of gold? Still no.

We use copper to conduct electricity. Iron and steel to build. Aluminium when we need something light. Zinc to protect certain metals from corrosion. Lead for a few very specific applications. Some metals are even dangerous or toxic, like mercury.

And yet, they exist. They have different properties. Different uses. The fact that gold is an exceptional monetary asset absolutely doesn't mean every other metal has to disappear.

Same goes for Bitcoin. Bitcoin can be the best digital hard money ever created without that automatically meaning Ethereum has to disappear, that every blockchain is useless, that every company is useless, that property is useless or that every other asset class belongs in the bin. That way of thinking is painfully narrow.

Bitcoin doesn't fix everything

There's one line you hear all the time: "Bitcoin fixes this." Sometimes, yes. But no, Bitcoin doesn't fix absolutely everything.

Bitcoin solves a few very specific problems extremely well: digital monetary scarcity, the ability to move value without a central authority, censorship resistance, monetary sovereignty and the ability to hold your own money. And that alone is absolutely huge. Why try to turn it into the solution to every problem humanity has?

Bitcoin isn't going to fix your relationship. Bitcoin isn't going to put up your building. Bitcoin isn't going to develop a new medicine. Bitcoin isn't going to replace every company on the planet.

Bitcoin doesn't need to replace everything to be revolutionary. That may even be one of the things some maximalists struggle to accept: something can be extraordinary without having to make everything else useless.

Maximalism sometimes drives away the very people it claims to convince

And that's probably where maximalism becomes most counterproductive.

Picture someone discovering Bitcoin for the first time. They turn up with perfectly normal questions. "Can I leave my bitcoin on Kraken?" "Why Bitcoin and not Ethereum?" "I bought some Dogecoin, is that bad?" "Is a hardware wallet complicated?"

And instead of calmly explaining things, part of the community replies: "Not your keys, not your coins." "Shitcoiner." "Study Bitcoin." "Have fun staying poor."

Brilliant. What a welcome. And then we act surprised when the general public sometimes sees bitcoiners as a bunch of weird computer nerds locked inside a digital cult.

The most ironic part is that altcoins, exchanges and even memecoins have probably brought a huge number of people to Bitcoin.

How many people start by buying some completely random crypto because a friend told them about it? Then they lose money. They start trying to work out why. They discover tokenomics. Funding rounds. Unlocks. Foundations. Insider allocations.

Then they discover Bitcoin. 21 million. No CEO. No presale. No venture capital behind it. No marketing team that could decide tomorrow to change the monetary policy. And that's when something clicks.

Sometimes the road to Bitcoin runs through a proper slap in the face from a shitcoin. And that's fine.

Sovereignty also means the right to make choices you don't like

There's also a contradiction I find hugely entertaining. Some maximalists talk about individual freedom and sovereignty all day long. But the moment someone uses that freedom to do something they don't approve of, they suddenly become extremely authoritarian.

You want to keep 500 francs' worth of Bitcoin on an exchange because you know the risks and it's more convenient for you? Your choice.

You want to hold your own keys? Great. You want to buy a bit of Ethereum? Your money. You want to put everything into Bitcoin? Still your money.

Financial sovereignty isn't about replacing the banker who tells you what to do with a Bitcoiner on Twitter who tells you what to do. It's precisely about deciding for yourself.

Of course you have to explain the risks. Of course you have to explain why self-custody matters. Of course you have to remind people what Bitcoin really is.

But after that, everyone makes their own choices. With their eyes open. To me, that's much closer to the spirit of Bitcoin.

Bitcoin doesn't need a cult

Bitcoin is solid enough to stand up to other ideas. It doesn't need anyone to put every discussion about Ethereum intellectually off-limits. It doesn't need anyone calling someone a moron for owning shares. It doesn't need anyone humiliating a beginner because they don't know how to use a seed phrase yet. It doesn't even need everyone to agree with it.

Bitcoin will keep producing a block roughly every ten minutes, whether you own Solana, a flat, Nestlé shares or a Pokémon card collection. And that's exactly what makes it beautiful.

If we really think Bitcoin is superior on the monetary front, then let's explain why. Let's show it. Let's use it. Let's educate. Let's help.

But let's stop believing that insulting everyone who doesn't think exactly like us is going to speed up its adoption.

Bitcoin doesn't need disciples. It needs curious people. And above all, open doors, not gatekeepers.

Thanks for reading.

Back to the notebook