The market keeps talking

The market keeps talking

I used to hear Majamalu talk about what was happening in the Bitcoin-BTC forums: deleted posts and messages, systematic user bans, insults, etc. From his statements, I inferred that these spaces had become branches of some kind of cult. It was hard for me to fully believe what he said, until I decided to leave an opinion in a Facebook group: all I did was point out, without disrespecting anyone, the reasons why I believe Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is better than Bitcoin-BTC.

Majamalu had already warned me about what to expect, and I must say he was right. I received a flood of responses, almost all of them containing mockery and insults. But not all. The only argument I was presented with was a striking one: “the market has already spoken.” They implied that, due to the significant difference between the price of bitcoin-BTC and bitcoin-BCH, people had already decided in a free market which one was better.

It’s true that in the world of cryptocurrencies there are no impositions and everyone can choose freely. That said, I think it’s worth clarifying something that blind BTC fans insist on ignoring. The vast majority of people are still trying to understand what cryptocurrencies are, how they work, how they are issued, what advantages they have over alternatives, etc. They were created not long ago and, like any revolutionary innovation, generate skepticism and many, many questions.

But those who allow themselves to doubt and investigate patiently, in the long run, are usually also the ones who reap the rewards, just like those who got involved early on. These pioneers were labeled naive or delusional, if not criminals, while the “specialists” predicted Bitcoin’s imminent demise.

Those who mocked bitcoiners at first, pointing to the low and transient value of the cryptocurrency or its steep price drops, are today the ones who mock those of us who criticize the negative change that occurred in BTC, using the same arguments that fiat money and central bank supporters used to employ.

We used to defend BTC from attacks coming from all fronts. We did it because we understood its advantages and believed that this currency had the potential to compete with fiat money, not to bolster it as BTC supporters propose today. For us, the existence of a form of electronic p2p cash is essential to put limits on the expansion of state power. That’s why we fought from the beginning.

However, the question needs to be reiterated: would BTC have taken off as a project if Satoshi Nakamoto’s proposal had been what BTC supporters advocate today? That is, if a cryptocurrency had been created with sky-high fees to force people to use it as a store of value or only for transactions of thousands or millions of dollars; or if it had been presented as an alternative for carrying out transactions as slow or slower than bank transfers; or if, to send bitcoins at a lower cost, it was necessary to resort to intermediaries; or if its promoters invited us to keep using fiat money for almost all our transactions… What would have happened?

Upon entering the current BTC scene, one gets the feeling that many of its members arrived late to the crypto ecosystem and invested in BTC without really knowing what they were doing, and without basic knowledge of economics. And since the rise in BTC’s price hardly encourages reflection in this type of investor, they react defensively to anything that might force them to rethink their decisions—like BCH, which still keeps Satoshi Nakamoto’s project alive.

Claiming that the market “has spoken” is nonsense. The market is talking all the time; nothing is final for the market. Anyone who thinks there’s no turning back, that nothing will change, either doesn’t understand how the economy works or is trying to make a (bad) defense of their investment.

This point can be illustrated with the competition between WhatsApp and other messaging apps. I remember years ago, when you could only send text messages through WhatsApp, other apps also offered voice messages and even video calls. But, as they say, the early bird catches the worm. The market, as I mentioned before, is talking all the time, and could have punished WhatsApp if it hadn’t progressed, which is why the company improved its service. In fact, recently, privacy concerns over WhatsApp were capitalized on by other companies in the field, such as Signal and Telegram, which gained unprecedented visibility and a surprising increase in users in a very short time.

And consumer backlash could be even harsher in the future, since the market hasn’t finished talking and never will. WhatsApp decided to take action, improved its service first, and then offered explanations to try to clarify the privacy issue. The BTC developers do the exact opposite: they proudly continue down the same path and assure us this is just the beginning; that fees will keep rising and we should celebrate it.

Meanwhile, the market keeps talking, even if they want to silence it.