The question of whether Bitcoin’s present stagnation is a function of technological limits or policy barriers is interesting because it forces us to separate cause from effect in a market that is both ideological and pragmatic. James O’Beirne’s observation speaks to an insider’s disillusionment. If the pace of meaningful technical development slows and the community turns inward into fragmented debates rather than coherent progress then it is conceivable that this becomes visible to capital allocators who are fluent in the underlying technology. In that scenario policy is almost secondary because the market perceives diminished future utility.
On the other hand Pierre Rochard’s point about tax treatment is not trivial. In the United States every small purchase with Bitcoin potentially creates a taxable event which introduces friction well beyond the technical execution of a transaction. That makes day to day payments unattractive in practice even if Lightning or other scaling solutions remove the mechanical barriers. From that perspective technology could be advanced yet still underutilized because policy conditions make usage costly.
It is possible that both forces reinforce each other. Slower innovation at the protocol level makes Bitcoin less compelling to policymakers as an object of reform. Weak policy reform in turn limits real world experimentation with Bitcoin as a payment medium. The period O’Beirne recalls around 2018 combined visible progress on scaling and scripting with a sense of technical momentum that invited optimism. Without that momentum the burden of legislative and regulatory inertia becomes heavier.
A serious answer to which factor matters more probably depends on the use case in view. For speculative holding the tax issue is marginal while technological stagnation could eventually weaken the narrative. For high volume transactional use the tax burden is dominant regardless of technology. A long term strategy for Bitcoin adoption would need to push both fronts at once and treat the absence of either as a limiting factor for the other.
The question of whether Bitcoin’s present stagnation is a function of technological limits or policy barriers is interesting because it forces us to separate cause from effect in a market that is both ideological and pragmatic. James O’Beirne’s observation speaks to an insider’s disillusionment. If the pace of meaningful technical development slows and the community turns inward into fragmented debates rather than coherent progress then it is conceivable that this becomes visible to capital allocators who are fluent in the underlying technology. In that scenario policy is almost secondary because the market perceives diminished future utility.
On the other hand Pierre Rochard’s point about tax treatment is not trivial. In the United States every small purchase with Bitcoin potentially creates a taxable event which introduces friction well beyond the technical execution of a transaction. That makes day to day payments unattractive in practice even if Lightning or other scaling solutions remove the mechanical barriers. From that perspective technology could be advanced yet still underutilized because policy conditions make usage costly.
It is possible that both forces reinforce each other. Slower innovation at the protocol level makes Bitcoin less compelling to policymakers as an object of reform. Weak policy reform in turn limits real world experimentation with Bitcoin as a payment medium. The period O’Beirne recalls around 2018 combined visible progress on scaling and scripting with a sense of technical momentum that invited optimism. Without that momentum the burden of legislative and regulatory inertia becomes heavier.
A serious answer to which factor matters more probably depends on the use case in view. For speculative holding the tax issue is marginal while technological stagnation could eventually weaken the narrative. For high volume transactional use the tax burden is dominant regardless of technology. A long term strategy for Bitcoin adoption would need to push both fronts at once and treat the absence of either as a limiting factor for the other.