There's a persistent myth that Bitcoiners are made through altcoins. The argument goes something like this:
- Someone hears about NFTs, a BRC-20 token or some yield-producing DeFi project.
- They get curious and get into said altcoin.
- They then find out about Bitcoin.
- They recognize Bitcoin as sound money and start using it as such going forward
There are many criticisms of this argument, but let's start with one of marketing. The order here matters. The contention is that these people hear about an altcoin first before Bitcoin. While this may be the case for a few people, for the vast majority, they hear about Bitcoin first. The people investing in an altcoin almost certainly are people that know about Bitcoin already. It's extremely rare that new people come into an altcoin, without any knowledge of Bitcoin at all.
Second, there's a persistent idea that mere exposure to Bitcoin is enough for people to start adopting it. That somehow, hearing about Bitcoin, whether through commercials, ATM signs and Bitcoin Accepted Here stickers, that it's enough to send them down the rabbit hole of Austrian economics, incentive systems, the nature of money and so on to get to the place where they become Bitcoin holders.
Of course, this is ridiculous on its face. I'm sure someone, who was already inclined toward sound money principles through time-preference, has become a Bitcoiner this way, but for the vast majority of Bitcoiners, exposure to the brand was not enough. They were exposed to an argument for why Bitcoin is superior as money, more moral, better for civilization or better for wealth accumulation. Exposure to an altcoin very rarely exposes people to the best arguments for Bitcoin. It's very much in the altcoiners' interest to make Bitcoin seem worse in comparison. The arguments that they are exposed to are the easily refutable and require Olympic-level mental gymnastics to believe, usually a token around a centralized decentralization of something that makes little sense to decentralize. Thus, they might get a little more exposure to the brand, but the arguments for Bitcoin are something that they won't get in altcoin-land.
In other words, the people involved in these altcoins have very different motivations and the marketing makes this very obvious. The hope is always the price rise in the token through further marketing. There's nothing about these that point to Bitcoin's advantages over fiat money.
And the experience of Bitcoin Maximalists is clear evidence to the contrary. Many have had some time with altcoins in the past, but that's generally way before they finally "get" Bitcoin. In large part, that moment when they get Bitcoin comes after getting rugged in an altcoin, not because the altcoin somehow made Bitcoin's virtue more obvious.
Far from bringing "people into Bitcoin," altcoins actively tempt would-be Bitcoiners into a path of gambling and rent-seeking. This is precisely what takes people away from providing value and using Bitcoin as savings and puts them in a very fiat mentality of trying to get something for nothing.
This is why it takes most Bitcoiners years to really "get" Bitcoin. Adoption does not happen through airdrops or ads. Adoption happens through each individual understanding what Bitcoin is for. What altcoins do is confuse the issue because altcoins make Bitcoin seem more like "crypto," or a speculative gamble. Indeed, this is what altcoiners and nocoiners have in common. They don't or won't understand that Bitcoin is a better money. For them, it's a better or worse lottery.
Let's dispense with this idiotic narrative that altcoins somehow benefit Bitcoin. They're leeches of the system that confuse people with their obviously flawed arguments on the need for a token for their project. Altcoins are a morally corrupt evil.
I didn't get into Bitcoin so someone in Nigeria can now gamble more efficiently online. I got into Bitcoin because that same person can keep more of their wealth by not having their money continuously stolen from them. The altcoiners deserve all the vitriol that they're getting. At best, they are naive and overestimate their economics knowledge. At worst, they are scammers that are rent-seeking off of Bitcoin's success. Either way, this argument needs to die.