I just love when Justin starts dropping truth bombs
And there's so many separate pieces, I asked slopPT to piece it together
Partly so I could fully understand his points
And for anyone that wants a summary
Justin (@justin_shocknet) is making a pretty interesting argument: Bitcoin may be freedom money today, but mass adoption could change what Bitcoin is understood to be — and create a conflict between freedom and mainstream acceptance.
“Normies wouldn't use it as freedom money per your definition, they'd either redefine that, or have a different narrative altogether.”
In plain English, he thinks most ordinary people won't adopt Bitcoin because they care about escaping government control, financial censorship, or the traditional banking system.
Instead, they'll adopt it for something simpler: predictable money — an asset with a more predictable monetary policy than government-issued currency.
That distinction matters because the motivations of existing Bitcoiners and mainstream users may be very different.
Justin points to a recurring pattern: whenever Bitcoin moves closer to mainstream acceptance, some people who were attracted to its more radical vision leave for something else.
He gives examples:
Bigger blocks weren't adopted, so some people left for Bitcoin Cash.
Privacy and medium-of-exchange goals weren't being met, so some moved toward Monero.
Institutional adoption through ETFs and financial collateral has prompted some to look elsewhere, including toward AI.
His point is that some people want Bitcoin to remain an outsider's tool, and they become disillusioned when it becomes more conventional.
“So can Bitcoin be freedom money and normie money simultaneously? I don't see how given freedom money people run from normies.”
He's highlighting a tension:
Freedom money: You control your money directly, can transact without permission, and don't have to trust a bank or custodian.
Mainstream money: Most people use familiar intermediaries such as exchanges, banks, custodians and ETFs.
In his follow-up discussion, he argues that ordinary people can own Bitcoin without actually using its freedom-enhancing features. If they hold it through an ETF or exchange, they may still depend on financial intermediaries. Bitcoin removes the central-bank issuer, but that doesn't automatically eliminate banks or custodians from people's lives.
Justin isn't necessarily arguing that Bitcoin cannot serve both purposes at the protocol level. He's questioning whether it can achieve both in the way people actually use it.
Bitcoin can become a huge financial success while most users continue to rely on institutions. Its price and adoption could rise even as relatively few people use self-custody or peer-to-peer payments.
The deeper question he's raising is: If Bitcoin succeeds as an investment but people still need permission from intermediaries to use their money, has it really succeeded as freedom money?
I just love when Justin starts dropping truth bombs
And there's so many separate pieces, I asked slopPT to piece it together
Partly so I could fully understand his points
And for anyone that wants a summary
Justin (@justin_shocknet) is making a pretty interesting argument: Bitcoin may be freedom money today, but mass adoption could change what Bitcoin is understood to be — and create a conflict between freedom and mainstream acceptance.
He makes two main points.
1. Ordinary people may redefine what Bitcoin is for
Justin says:
In plain English, he thinks most ordinary people won't adopt Bitcoin because they care about escaping government control, financial censorship, or the traditional banking system.
Instead, they'll adopt it for something simpler: predictable money — an asset with a more predictable monetary policy than government-issued currency.
That distinction matters because the motivations of existing Bitcoiners and mainstream users may be very different.
2. Bitcoin winning could disappoint some Bitcoiners
Justin points to a recurring pattern: whenever Bitcoin moves closer to mainstream acceptance, some people who were attracted to its more radical vision leave for something else.
He gives examples:
His point is that some people want Bitcoin to remain an outsider's tool, and they become disillusioned when it becomes more conventional.
3. Can Bitcoin be both freedom money and mainstream money?
Justin's central question is:
He's highlighting a tension:
In his follow-up discussion, he argues that ordinary people can own Bitcoin without actually using its freedom-enhancing features. If they hold it through an ETF or exchange, they may still depend on financial intermediaries. Bitcoin removes the central-bank issuer, but that doesn't automatically eliminate banks or custodians from people's lives.
Slop's interpretation
Justin isn't necessarily arguing that Bitcoin cannot serve both purposes at the protocol level. He's questioning whether it can achieve both in the way people actually use it.
Bitcoin can become a huge financial success while most users continue to rely on institutions. Its price and adoption could rise even as relatively few people use self-custody or peer-to-peer payments.
The deeper question he's raising is: If Bitcoin succeeds as an investment but people still need permission from intermediaries to use their money, has it really succeeded as freedom money?
That's the tension at the heart of his argument.