pull down to refresh

125 sats \ 3 replies \ @SimpleStacker 26 Mar \ parent \ on: Bitcoin Core From the Inside: Jon Atack - Knut Svanholm bitcoin bitdevs

My (weakly held) counterargument here is that Bitcoin as a MOE requires ideological support currently, whereas Bitcoin as a SOV is the aspect that already has market incentives.

But the problem is that Bitcoin-as-SOV incentives are towards financialization. People have Bitcoin sitting in an account, and they want yield. I'm not saying they're right, but I'm saying that's what they want. People like Saylor are trying to give that to them. But, IMO, it's not really what Bitcoin needs.

Bitcoin, from the start, has been ideological. If ideological funding dries up and development is entirely market oriented, then bitcoin may lose its ideological identity.

write
compose
69 sats \ 2 replies \ @k00b 26 Mar

I agree, directionally. There is a role for ideological capital. It's healthy. It adds diversity to incentives. But we've crossed from this-is-helpful to this-is-odd levels of nonprofit activity in bitcoin imo.

reply
2 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 26 Mar

Definitely concerning if Bitcoin development (outside of financial games like Saylor or crypto casinos like Armstrong) can't support itself from market incentives.

reply
69 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 26 Mar

I do wonder what the right dose of outside dev support is. There's something good about devs being intrinsically motivated, sacrificing their own time and money. It selects for different people at the very least. I'd wager it selects for leaders - those roles are pure sacrifice.

reply