The Great Realignment: Money, Power, Greed & Bitcoin
Introduction.
Introduction
This is a book.
One may not recognize it as such. And it is a book nevertheless. I cannot be certain this is a unique, or indeed, even a sound approach to writing a book. Yet, it is the approach I have decided upon.
This will be unlike most books one might acquire, where the effort to compose it is long since past by the time the reader puts their eyes to the page. In this case the reader will be along for the ride, so to speak. Just prior to writing this I realized I have written 350,000 to 400,000 words on Medium over the last two and a half years.
In terms of most mass-market books, that word count falls somewhere between three to five books worth of material. To be fair, most of it would not be worthy of a book. My approach on Medium was largely devoted to an educational campaign around basic macro-economic concepts and the safe navigation of digital asset markets.
Of late that focus has transformed to a singular one: The promotion of Bitcoin as a global treasury reserve asset.
This shift in endeavor did not come overnight, nor was it one that was undertaken lightly. Prior to writing this column, I published a number of peer-reviewed academic papers on a diversity of topics. While I am a firm believer that an advanced education and academic defense of ideas is a noble pursuit, I recognize now such that endeavors come with hidden costs.
Most notably, the academic rigor I applied to evaluating so-called “crypto assets” blinded me to a number of unique and distinguishable properties of Bitcoin. The academic mind is a suspicious one and rightfully so. Extraordinary claims must be backed by extraordinary evidence. Absent such backing, caution is always warranted before one draws strong conclusions.
Unfortunately, this led me to a number of unseen and unacknowledged heuristic biases. The conservatism of academia provided me with an intellectual cover that I ego-centrically pursued to maintain an appearance of objectivity. Ego-centric or not, fierce objectivity is appropriate when discussing topics such as those found in legal scholarship on financial regulation and criminology — my particular areas of expertise.
Within those fields, there is a vast history of critical thinkers and astute, learned scholars working through often intractable problems of human interaction. Novelty of approach and analysis is uncommon, as the depth of existing scholarship rarely has holes large enough to find a new idea worth exploring.
Not because seemingly new ideas don’t materialize. More so because what can often be mistaken for a new idea is rarely one that has not been thoroughly discussed, debated or definitively answered by someone, or indeed, many someones throughout history. This being a long-winded way of saying, there are very few unturned stones in legal and criminological academic circles.
This is why academic papers are so often focused on minutia and feature much tinkering around the edges of core ideas. Thus, for a mind trained such as mine is, the introduction of something that is indeed novel and new can be disruptive. The impulse is to reject novelty out of hand. Not due to a lack of curiosity, but rather because curiosity in academia is so rarely rewarded.
Again, conservatism of approach is highly prized and well regarded in academia. To take a stand on a new concept is to challenge much orthodoxy and it is an uncomfortable place to remain steadfast. And yet, my academic mind continued to pursue the little threads and tendrils of Bitcoin knowledge and ideas that are often presented with absolute certitude, especially by the devout.
Thus the approach by the Bitcoin devotees was anathema to my predisposition, right or wrong. All of which conspired to make the revelation of Bitcoin’s deeper qualities very opaque to me. I consider myself quite fortunate that I set aside my suspicion long enough to pursue greater knowledge of Bitcoin with an open mind.
Upon doing so, it quickly became evident I had been wrong about Bitcoin the whole time.
That said, I think my true blessings are the possession of a sufficient quantity of humility to recognize I was wrong and the ability to correct course immediately. What I’ve often observed in academic circles is a steadfast refusal to reject prior constructs in favor of new ones, especially when doing so might prove embarrassing.
The economic incentives and the identities constructed in academia often provide few paths to break free from long-held beliefs. Often attempts to do so will prove very disruptive to both the incentives and the identity of the academic practitioner. One of my great fortunes lies in the fact that I do not have an economic incentive to dogmatically adhere to what has worked for me in the past.
Likewise, my academic identity was acquired much later in life than most. This left me free from the confines of an academic identity that, for those deeply embroiled, is essentially baked in. For them, years of accolades and other external reinforcements often result in an identity that is deeply internalized and finely interwoven with concepts of self, making it a near impossibility to shake off.
This circuitous introduction is intended to set the tone for what is to come. For my regular readers both new and old, I welcome you to join in this journey with me. My intention is to bridge an undefinable gap between “pure” academic writing and the more accessible form of mass market narration.
The difficulty I foresee is the nuance required to accurately chart a course forward without completely befuddling a wider audience. Ultimately, my goal is to achieve some form of middle ground, while staying as close to academic credibility as I can. The ultimate intention is to provide a coherent reference point for discussion and debate. If this proves limiting to my audience, so be it.
There is no shortage of approachable mass-market alternatives for the lay reader. If you find yourself bored by the discussion henceforth, I would encourage you to seek out those sources. My incentive here is pure and solely focused on enhancing and furthering constructive dialogue around Bitcoin and what I think is its primary usefulness as a treasury reserve asset.
I am certain many will disagree with my analysis and it is welcome criticism. I am not, and will do my best not to become, dogmatic in approach.
In terms of expectations for future chapters, it is difficult to say. For those unfamiliar with the writing process, it is a deeply personal one. Many find it useful to vomit out any stream of consciousness and then extensively edit afterwards to arrive at a coherent narrative. Others are quite adept at writing concisely and pointedly with little in the way of editorial changes later on.
Historically, I fall somewhere in-between. Much of my editing comes during the writing process and the majority of my previous published research was done with little, to no editorial input post submission and publication. That said, what is written today is by no means set in stone. As the research process evolves, often so does the narrative.
This is a preemptive caution, as there may be sweeping changes during, or indeed upon completion of this “open-source” book writing experiment. I will not be held to dogma, nor will I accept willy-nilly any and all input. That said, if you feel the desire to contribute your opinion, please be sure to make it thoughtful, lest it be rejected out of hand.
In terms of sourcing and citation, this is a digital medium. My intent is to link where appropriate the source for my assertions. I may, or may not include bibliographical references. This is yet to be determined. The trouble with links is they can move or expire.
The trouble with bibliographies is they are rarely pursued, as I learned all too well when I was called upon to be a peer-reviewer myself. I am the reviewer that verifies all references and my experience doing so revealed much laziness in academic citation, even by esteemed authors. I say this because I am dubious of the return on investment in bibliographic references, but still leery of relying upon impermanent links.
My approach may well evolve. Time will tell. In the interim, I intend to write and publish weekly. Whether they be full chapters, or partial will depend on the topic at hand. This book will develop and morph beyond what I am setting out to do. This is normal with writing and likely an unavoidable issue.
What may seem a complete chapter one week may be completely re-written the next. A chapter may well comprise a few sentences, or it may be well-developed. I’ve learned enough over the years to allow the process to unfold naturally.
Shifting from focused to diffuse thinking requires highly variable timing and is not a predictable practice. It is one, however, that is critical to navigating a long writing assignment successfully. All this to say, the writing I will be doing over the next few weeks or months will not be linear or complete. It may be quite fractured because my intention is to continue posting here weekly, regardless of the state of things.
A secondary hope for this endeavor is for the benefit of the burgeoning writers who may be reading as well. I am hopeful that seeing the writing process unfold week-by-week proves helpful to their journey. Of course, we’re all different writers but this process, I think, will provide a unique insight.
While I cannot predict where this will end up, my intention right now is to complete this book in its entirety here on Medium. And here it will stay, free to any and all that wish to read it. I will likely publish the book on Amazon as well and sell it for a nominal price. I’ll leave the choice to the consumer. Selling the completed work will only be to satisfy those who do not like reading from a website, but are still interested in what I have to say on the matter at hand.
I am a firm believer that Bitcoin as a treasury reserve asset will be one of the most profound, fundamental changes in the way human beings interact and transact. I find the idea that Bitcoin should be a medium of exchange for any and all transactions absurd. This puts me in some conflict with many of the original developers that led to the creation of the Bitcoin we know today.
Moreover, that conflict has bubbled over a number of times in the past and continues to simmer to this day. The amount of infighting and hostility among the various Bitcoin republics is disturbing to me. I think most of it childish and counter-productive to the potential embodied in the small-block version of Bitcoin. That is to say, the version that is currently preeminent among the ideologies, at least in terms of adoption.
A perhaps vain hope for this book is to eventually bridge that gap and find unity among the various camps. As I alluded to above, the implications of Bitcoin as a treasury reserve asset seem to me far more important and far more impactful than a censorship-resistant, black market, micro-transactional network could ever hope to be.
This is the starting assumption and the intended topic of exploration in this book.
Come what may.
