Etiquette for early bitcoin adopters: An examination
A s the world approaches hyperbitcoinization in the upcoming years, each person’s net worth will rise or fall based on his or her personal allocation to bitcoin. Early adopters (who understand the situation well enough to hold on to their bitcoin throughout the process) will see the wealth of the world pour into the palms of their hands. Social hierarchies will be transformed, benefiting some and serving a rude awakening to others.
Those dealing with incredulousness, disinterest, or various psychological hurdles keeping them away from bitcoin will be shocked to witness capital flight from the assets they own, toward a digital ledger they don’t yet understand. It may lead to strong resentment toward bitcoin and bitcoin advocates, who are simultaneously experiencing the euphoria of newfound wealth. Dangerous levels of envy could come into play.
While it might be difficult to write an article that could be expected to adequately console the people in this position, what I can do is write an article aimed at the euphoric bitcoiners, attempting to think through our possible responses to the new paradigm. Here I will examine our current treatment of the naysayers, and how I think our interactions with them should evolve as they become reclassified as “late adopters.” What behavior will best serve us, and what behavior should we consider resisting and rebuking?
Bitcoin culture has been justifiably ruthless
It takes some honest effort for an individual to initially understand bitcoin, but once it clicks, there’s no going back. It can’t be unseen, and it even appears obvious in hindsight.
So obvious, in fact, that it can become quite frustrating that so many other people are failing to grasp it. It’s a natural instinct to want to help propagate the truth, especially because doing so would benefit both you and the listener.
Some people might be able to be convinced through careful and thoughtful discussion, if they are open-minded and curious. But unfortunately, this only describes a minority of people. So instead, bitcoiners often find themselves resorting to alternative tactics.
Rhetorical bullying is not nice, but it can serve a good purpose. If the bullying is focused on a behavior that the victim has the power to change, then it can be a form of social tough love: “stop engaging in that stupid behavior, it’s turning you into a loser.”
Constantly reminding everyone about how much bitcoin holders continue to win and naysayers continue to lose may seem childish or rude, but the reality is that it’s a very efficient way of communicating undeniable evidence in favor of bitcoin. It can inspire people to take it more seriously and to stop listening to the skeptics, all while bypassing the rigorous conversation they aren’t interested in.
If they feel pain, maybe they’ll take their hand off the stove.
Bitcoiners have developed a reputation for mercilessly dunking on our adversaries, and there have even been excellent resources created about how to do this more effectively. While vicious, this approach makes complete logical sense to help bitcoin spread more quickly to the masses, which is good for them, and good for us. I don’t take issue with it during bitcoin’s adoption phase (when people still have the privilege of converting government currency into bitcoin). However, during hyperbitcoinization and beyond, it’s an entirely different scenario worth examining separately.
Not everyone can be rescued
Hyperbitcoinization occurs when the largest institutions (especially governments) begin aggressively competing for their share of the bitcoin supply. Individual people who were able to foresee this, and accumulate some bitcoin before the dogpile of institutions, will be known as the “early adopters.” Those who don’t take bitcoin seriously until after the institutions are involved will be known as the “late adopters,” and it’s unlikely that there will be much bitcoin left for them.
Yet, most individuals will necessarily be in the late adopter category. It’s untenable to believe that anywhere near 50% of the general population will manage to adopt bitcoin before the institutions have figured out the game themselves, since institutions are locked in constant competition and benefit from collective intelligence, while individuals only have their own imperfect minds.
What we’ve been asking of people
While it can be frustrating that our family, friends, and acquaintances are not treating bitcoin with the seriousness that it deserves, it’s worthwhile to take a step back and remember the nature of our claim. We’re essentially implying the following:
Most people are wrong about bitcoin
Most companies are wrong about bitcoin
Our government is wrong about bitcoin
Most other governments are wrong about bitcoin
The news media is wrong about bitcoin
Wall Street is wrong about bitcoin
Most economists and academics are wrong about bitcoin
“Cryptobros” are wrong about bitcoin, because bitcoin is vital technology while other crypto tokens amount to garbage
Despite all this, I’m right about bitcoin
No matter the subject, someone who goes against the grain to this extent is most often going to be interpreted as a bit of a nutcase. It’s only natural for others to be initially skeptical, because if bitcoin is so amazing like we say it is, why hasn’t everyone else caught on already?
There are only two ways for someone to get around this obstacle. One way is to wait until everyone else does catch on, and the governments, media, bankers, and academia are forced to admit their mistake. This would cause someone to be a late adopter. The other way is if someone is willing to take a stand and go against the grain themselves, trusting their own due diligence above collective intelligence. Many people are simply not comfortable doing this.
Do we get bitcoin at the price we deserve?
A common saying amongst bitcoiners is: “everyone gets bitcoin at the price they deserve.”
The sentiment being expressed is that if someone isn’t willing to think for themself, then that person doesn’t deserve to participate in the skyrocketing wealth that bitcoiners experience. Or if someone is too lazy to put an honest effort into studying bitcoin, then they are similarly undeserving. Only those who approach bitcoin in good faith and put in the work to understand it shall be rewarded, and this is how it should be.
This view is not purely an in-group-out-group bias, either. Many bitcoiners will freely admit something along the lines of:
“I only finally began to understand bitcoin in [insert a year here], and therefore I have much less bitcoin than I would have had if I took it seriously earlier on. Yet, I accept that this is the price to pay for my mistake. Those who accumulated bitcoin before me didn’t make the same mistake to the same extent, and therefore they deserve to have more bitcoin than me.”
Such a self-reflection is humble and honorable, and so it’s hard to criticize it or dispute that there is some truth to be found in it.
However, I must push back against the dogma of this aphorism being completely, entirely true. There are several things wrong—if not dangerous—about it. For example, it would seem to suggest that the wealth hierarchy of the new, bitcoinized economy ought to be determined by approximately two facets alone: the ability to think against the grain, and the motivation to put time into learning about new technology. While these are both positive features an individual can possess, they are certainly not the only worthwhile qualities to be found in someone.
Such a perspective would condemn a majority of good people to something close to poverty, and then claim that it’s a just outcome. But this is absurd. Plenty people are not technologically inclined, such as those who are very old or very young. Plenty of people simply don’t have a good opportunity to learn much about bitcoin even if they wanted to, because they exist in the confines of a third-world country with limited resources and education. Plenty of people are wonderful, kind, and generous, but don’t possess the facets earlier described. Do all of these people deserve less wealth? Of course not. The bitcoiner who thinks so is narcissistic.
Bitcoiners are a special breed
In 2020 and 2021, on social media, bitcoiners like Brandon Quittem discovered something quite interesting. At his request, many of us self-reported our Myers-Briggs personality types, and found that the distribution within the bitcoin community was very different than the general population. While the approach wasn’t strictly scientific, there were over 500 data points, and the resulting differences were remarkably compelling, to warrant clear statistical significance.
The two most popular Myers-Briggs personality types within the general population, accounting for more 25% of all people, are ISFJ and ESFJ, yet 0% of the bitcoiners polled represented these types. The top six types in the general population accounts for 62% of all people, but less than 4% of the bitcoiners polled.
Meanwhile, 51% of bitcoiners polled were INTJ or INTP, which accounts for only around 5% of the general population. And the top six types among bitcoiners, accounting for 83% of those polled, make up only 16% of the general population.
The data suggests that bitcoiners are more likely to be introverted than extroverted, more likely to favor intuition over sensing, and to favor thinking over feeling.
“The geek shall inherit the Earth.”
Whether or not someone gives much credence to the Myers-Briggs system, it’s hard to deny that the people naturally attracted to bitcoin are people with certain inclinations, which in hindsight seems obvious, or at least expected. So, if “everyone gets bitcoin at the price they deserve,” does that mean that ISFJs and ESFJs don’t deserve to be early adopters? Do they instead deserve to be late adopters, due to something about them that is perhaps beyond their control?
Just don’t dance
Therefore, the conclusion to be drawn is that we are headed into a situation where many people will be feeling the economic pain of adopting bitcoin late, but many of those people won’t be deserving of that pain.
While the temptation may exist to gloat, as some of us have been doing in the proper context for years, such behavior will no longer be appropriate, nor in our best interest. During bitcoin’s pre-institutional adoption phase, we have done it as a desperate attempt to convince others to join us as early adopters. But after that phase has passed, engaging in this behavior would merely be a form of immature sadism, inviting retribution toward bitcoiners as a whole. Instead, I believe we ought to take a much more solemn and empathetic approach.
The Big Short is a famous movie about a small group of people who see the 2008 financial crisis coming before everyone else. They use their privileged knowledge to make asymmetric bets against the housing market that prove to be immensely profitable, amassing huge wealth in short span of time. Their immediate reaction is to celebrate, but Brad Pitt’s character is quick to remind them of the sober reality. “Just don’t f***ing dance.”
Instead of giving late adopters a reason to envy us and hate us, by bragging or showing off lavish lifestyles, I believe it will better serve us to step up our generosity and compassion. Choosing to spread education with patience and kindness, rather than reminding everyone “I told you so.” We have a unique opportunity to transform the prevailing culture into something far better, and if that’s what we want to accomplish, we must lead by example. We must take extra time to consider what is truly important to us; what is worth spending our bitcoin on.
What I’m describing essentially amounts to conventional wisdom and virtue. Nonetheless, I think it deserves to be emphasized so that it can exist top of mind as we head into hyperbitcoinization. Let us be mindful to pivot our attitude to meet the new situation. Let us avoid distraction, and instead be quick to recognize and reprimand our fellow early adopters who succumb to the temptations of narcissism or boasting. This is proper bitcoin etiquette.