Translated from: O que significa ser maximalista do Bitcoin ? Carol - Area Bitcoin - Kaká Furlan

A Bitcoin maximalist is someone who blindly believes that Bitcoin is the only cryptocurrency worth owning. These people see Bitcoin not only as a digital currency, but also as a revolutionary technology, a great way to store value, and an alternative to the failed fiat system.

Some maximalists go further and completely disregard the value or potential of altcoins, seeing them as unnecessary distractions or even harmful to the progress of Bitcoin. Because of this extreme stance, many are labeled as toxic.

But, why does this happen?

In this article, you will understand the origins of maximalism and why some people consider themselves Bitcoin maximalists.

The term "maximalist" is used to refer to Bitcoin enthusiasts who do not own, support, or even debunk scams and cryptocurrency projects. They share principles that support Bitcoin as the only truly decentralized project, considering that other cryptocurrencies are likely to depreciate against it.

This may seem strange and too closed-minded, but when you understand the importance of Bitcoin's organic decentralization as a unique event, the discovery of absolute monetary scarcity, digital immutability, and the separation of money from state control, any other fiat or cryptocurrency asset seems insignificant in comparison.

However, few people really understand the meaning of this, and most prefer to attack maximalists instead of trying to understand their viewpoints. This results in the naive assumption that more complexity is better for cryptocurrencies, which, in fact, entails more centralization and vulnerabilities.

The term "maximalism" was already being used in debate forums since the early days of Bitcoin, but it became popularized in 2014 when Vitalik Buterin, the creator of Ethereum, used the term in an article to criticize the premises of maximalists.

This article marked the consolidation of the term "maximalist" and intensified the tribalism between Bitcoiners and multicoiners. However, here comes a very interesting behavior. Many Bitcoiners see the use of insults as a badge of honor or a symbol of counterculture to neutralize any type of narrative attack, and with the term maximalist it was no different.

Several Bitcoiners embrace maximalism with pride, interpreting it as follows:

And that's how the term maximalist went from insult to a symbol of intellectual honesty.

Although many Bitcoiners do not embrace this label, considering it pejorative, it has become a concise way to summarize the different market views and the maturation of users over time.

As cryptocurrencies gained visibility and market capitalization, attacks on Bitcoin began to emerge, claiming that it is outdated, slow, and consumes a lot of energy. However, these arguments are biased, aiming to promote other cryptocurrencies at the expense of Bitcoin, even if they do not have half of its properties.

As the attacks on Bitcoin increased, Bitcoiners also became more emphatic and, at times, rude in their responses. This dynamic led to the emergence of a derivative known as "Toxic maximalism," when some Bitcoiners began to expose the fraud, inconsistencies, and lies of other cryptocurrencies in an intense way. This, in turn, led altcoiners to attack Bitcoiners, creating the "anti-maximalist" movement.

Even journalists, including one from the New York Times, wrote to "ignore maximalists, arguing that Bitcoin cannot be separated from other cryptocurrencies."

Bitcoin is completely different from other cryptocurrencies because:

Bitcoin has nothing in common with other cryptocurrencies because it is a protocol, while they are companies.

In an attempt to highlight these differences, maximalists began to create their own culture of memes, including laser eyes in profile pictures and sharing screenshots with undeniable evidence of fraud in cryptocurrencies and fiat currencies.

Just as Bitcoin is open source and many projects have copied the code to create their own coins, the culture of Bitcoiners has also been copied in a shameless way.

Maximalists from other projects have emerged, copying terms such as "ultra sound money," stealing the idea of "sound money" from Bitcoin, which is known as digital gold; the "triple halving," falsely claiming that the Ethereum merge would have an effect equivalent to three Bitcoin halvings (which did not happen).

All of this is affinity fraud, a mix of terms to falsify fundamentals and deceive those who are just arriving.

When you expose the fraud, those who benefited from it get angry, as it ends the affinity fraud that was being applied or they don't want to believe that they fell for the talk of a promising "shitcoin."

Eight years after his first article, in 2022, Vitalik Buterin wrote another article, no longer attacking maximalism, but exalting it.

This time, giving in to defend Bitcoin maximalism as a defensive cultural tool. In addition, he criticized the crypto culture that the blockchain industry brought, which focuses on seeking quick profits at any cost, either through pre-mining or by distributing these tokens to developers and insiders. In contrast, Bitcoin took the opposite approach, focusing on establishing sound principles.

In the same article, he shared an image (below) that demonstrates how Bitcoin did not have any type of allocation for insiders, while all other projects did, which weakens protocols and makes them centralized.

Vitalik considered Bitcoiner values – sovereignty, privacy, and decentralization – as a defense against narrative attacks. Additionally, he added that it is better to be courageous and fight for your values, even if it may seem aggressive (or toxic) to some, than to try to please everyone and not achieve anything concrete.

It is due to the firm stance and no exceptions for other cryptocurrencies that people began to call maximalism a cult, a worship of the Bitcoin divinity. This has become a form of bullying, with people claiming: "If they don't like my coin, they're the fanatics, I'm not the one exposing myself to liquidity for VCs and founders."

And this dynamic is always the same, even in pyramids. Even after people realize they have been scammed, they still hold out hope that it is real, that they will get their money back, and that the project will deliver on what it promised.

The same thing happens with many "promising" cryptocurrencies. People don't want to admit that they've been scammed, and instead of investigating where they invested their money, they outsource the blame and point the finger at Bitcoiners, who have nothing to do with it and, in fact, warned about the problem.

Many end up defending scams and attacking the messenger, labeling them as extremists, toxic, or even stupid for not being "diversifying."

At this point, most people make a mistake and mix everything up. Fiat strategies don't work with cryptocurrencies, and diversifying with cryptos increases the risk of the portfolio, being totally the opposite of the diversification principle that would normally serve to protect the assets.

In the end, all generalization is wrong. Labeling all maximalists based on the rude comment of one person is unfair and unethical. This prevents the opportunity to better understand and reflect on what market thesis you have embraced and whether you have been fooled by the herd effect.

Most maximalists I know want to help others not lose money with scams and to more easily perceive what is a valid signal and what is just noise in the market.

In addition, there is no ideological restriction to be a Bitcoiner, and there is no specific code of conduct; Bitcoiners are completely different from each other.

In fact, maximalism is a mixture of various points of view, and generalizing based on the speech or tweet of one person is stretching the truth to create stereotypes.

Unfortunately, most people only become maximalists after learning the hard way: losing money with cryptocurrencies.

Most maximalists were not close-minded as many claim. They were “shitcoiners” in past cycles who learned their lesson. That is why, if you are not a maximalist today, it is possible that you will become one in the future, when you finally understand all of this.

Maximalism is neither good nor bad; it was born as a response to attacks on Bitcoin. It is not extremist in the pejorative sense, as some maximalists of inferior cryptocurrencies try to make it seem.

In fact, it is a mindset that develops after following the market for a long time and understanding that everything that is not Bitcoin is centralized and is equivalent to fiat currency.

If something claims to be decentralized and is not, then it is a fraud.

Those who criticize maximalists are distracting from the assets to complain about people and create a division of “us versus them,” as if defending fraud were to be on the right side of history.

The differences are becoming increasingly clear, and a growing number of altcoiners have become “bitcoin only” from 2021 to now. This is, in fact, what separates childhood from adolescence in this market.

No matter how hard they try to tarnish the image of Bitcoiners, whether maximalists or not, they have been right so far, because they are based on principles and not on illusions.

In addition, it is likely that maximalism will become the standard in the future, just as everyone uses the internet today.