Crypto: A Rebellion Against Permission

So…

Do you love our traditional banking systems?
(Where others lend out your money to generate profits)
Are you excited about the idea of having your eyes scanned for World Coin? Do you find joy in the intricacies of KYC and other mass surveillance methods? Or do you appreciate big tech monetizing your data to keep you glued to your devices, contributing to their profits? Yearly Review

Or…

Are you Pro Permissionless?

Do you like having to ask for permission?

Do you enjoy seeking approval for every action, or do you lean towards the freedom to act independently?

Are you comfortable with constraints on your choices, or do you value the autonomy to make decisions without external approval?

Would you thrive in a world with constant restrictions, or do you appreciate the concept of being unrestrained in your decisions?

Self Sovereign Finance

This industry radiates defiance, radicalism, and rebellion, refusing to conform to traditional American ways.

In the Beginning

On the 18th of August 2008, the domain name bitcoin.org was registered. Later that year, on 31 October, a link to a paper authored by Satoshi Nakamoto titled:

Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System was posted to a cryptography mailing list.

You can read the whitepaper here.

In a very quick rundown.

Bitcoin is a digital ledger that records transactions on a decentralized network of computers, utilizing a technology called blockchain.
This decentralized ledger ensures transparency, security, and immutability of transactions, making it resistant to manipulation or tampering.

In contrast-
Traditional banking operates through a centralized system, relying on a single entity to oversee and manage transactions.
This centralized approach may introduce vulnerabilities, as a failure in one part of the system can have widespread repercussions.

Additionally, traditional banking involves a higher degree of trust in centralized institutions, unlike the more distributed and transparent nature of Bitcoin.

Bitcoin introduced the concept of permissionless money, allowing individuals to engage in financial transactions without the need for centralized approvals.

Later, Ethereum (ETH) further expanded this idea by introducing smart contracts, providing us with the essential tools to construct a completely permissionless financial system and this characteristic is truly revolutionary.

Above all else, this characteristic defines the very essence of the crypto realm.

It permeates all commendable projects within this domain.

If something doesn’t have permissionless qualities, it’s essentially a first step toward achieving true permissionlessness.

Interestingly, being permissionless has been a novel and challenging concept. In the traditional pre-crypto era, all fund transfers required someone’s authorization. Even though cash may seem permissionless, it’s not when sending it over a significant distance. Attempt to transfer 20 thousand dollars across a border, and you’ll quickly encounter the restrictions placed upon you. Even cash, with all its merits, doesn’t escape the realm of permissionlessness, and it’s gradually diminishing from societal use. Hence, we are fortunate that a form of digital money, free from permissions, emerged just in the nick of time.

I am full of questions.

Have you looked into the Fed Now Dollar and CBDC’s ? Are you familiar with CPI Inflation, where for every hard-earned dollar you blindly slave your life away, the government expects your trust that the dollar bill they pay you with is worth what they say it’s worth?

It’s crucial to note that the United States officially abandoned the gold standard on August 15, 1971, when President Richard Nixon announced the suspension of the dollar’s convertibility into gold. This historic decision marked the end of the Bretton Woods Agreement and signaled a shift towards a fiat currency system. Here are the actual numbers compared to the value of the dollar in the 1970s.

Your dollar is down 88% since 1970 and while inflation rises

Cons of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs):

1. Privacy Concerns: CBDCs may lead to increased surveillance, raising concerns about privacy invasion as central banks and governments gain detailed insights into spending habits.
2. Centralized Control: Issued and controlled by central banks or governments, CBDCs raise concerns about centralized authority, contrasting with the decentralized nature of cryptocurrencies.
3. Fear of Negative Interest Rates: CBDCs could facilitate effective implementation of negative interest rates, potentially leading to charges for holding money in digital wallets, acting as a deterrent.
4. Preference for Anonymity: Cryptocurrencies offer higher anonymity compared to CBDCs, making individuals who value financial privacy more inclined towards decentralized cryptocurrencies.
5. Distrust in Institutions: Lack of trust in government or central bank institutions may contribute to skepticism and rejection of CBDCs, especially in the context of historical events or financial crises.
6. Concerns About Economic Impact: Changes in monetary policy facilitated by CBDCs may raise concerns about their potential impact on inflation, the economy, and overall financial stability, leading to resistance.
7. Preference for Cash: The familiarity and tangibility of physical cash may make people resistant to transitioning to digital alternatives, especially those accustomed to traditional forms of money.
8. Fear of Financial Surveillance: CBDCs may enable closer financial tracking by governments, creating concerns about constant surveillance and impacting individuals who value financial autonomy.

Why does this even matter?

Think about it — money is part of almost everything we do in the economy. In a world where many struggle to afford basic needs, the economy becomes a life-or-death matter for billions. Most people aren’t chasing their passions; they’re working hard to survive. Money is crucial for our existence, shaping our lives. That’s why we should care about its quality, its nature, and who controls it. The permission might seem small, like when you use your card to pay, but it’s everywhere. It’s not just about having enough money; there’s a deeper layer to this permission.

Behind the scenes, there’s an unseen approval process involving banks, financial institutions, and the government. Numerous strangers along the line, people you’ll never meet, give their nod to each transaction. This permission often goes unnoticed because it’s usually granted, as long as you act like a responsible citizen. But needing permission to spend and trade essentially means needing permission to exist.

Why do we settle for a world where your freedom to transact hangs on the approval of strangers?

Picture it — it’s not real freedom; it’s more like subservience, a form of serfdom.

Don’t be fooled by the seeming lightness of the chains in most cases; they still exist.

Tolerating them only lets them become heavier over time.

Imagine the laws, growing to restrict our affairs more often than not and receding only rarely.

Now, picture the economic freedom of an average person a hundred years ago compared to today.

Back then, there wasn’t even an income tax. It was a time when you could keep what you earned and cross borders without needing a passport.

Consider the fact that societies not only survived but thrived in a state of anarchy.

A scenario where there’s no income tax or immigration restrictions, leading to unprecedented growth in America. Envision societies where the free flow of labor and capital propels extraordinary development.

However, there are those who take pleasure in exploiting the permission to retain earnings and move across borders, gradually eroding these freedoms under the guise of collectivist propaganda like the national interest.

Today, a substantial portion of the taxes you bear results in the state taking away half of your money.

Now, let’s analyze the situation:
1) The state is essentially a group of strangers.

2) Half of your money is taken by a set of strangers.

What justification do you provide yourself to cope with such embarrassment?

The permission to shape your own life is gradually being revoked by those who exploit you, all while asserting it’s for your own good.

Why does this matter? What keeps us from being controlled more and more? What fights against a life where we have less and less freedom?

The answer is simple — we do.

You might not see it, but what we’re doing is protecting our modern society from being taken advantage of and controlled by those in power.

We’re saying no to more and more restrictions on how we live.

It’s not the government or the political drama that’s helping us; in fact, they’re part of the problem.

As regular folks, we have to take charge — it’s up to us, using our minds, our hands, and making decisions without waiting for permission.

Permission is like when a child needs approval for candy — not something adults should need in their financial matters. If I can only do business with you because someone up there allows it, then I’m no better than a child. But is a child the right comparison? Children are loved by their parents. Do you feel loved by the Central Intelligence Agency? Maybe a trained dog from the shelter makes more sense.

We’ve allowed ourselves to be treated like animals — just part of a system, doing our work, and being used.

But here’s the thing — we can vote. We get to pick who’s in charge, choosing between red or blue, arguing over what’s better.

To let go of all these rules means we must really look up to our leaders and want to be like them — smart, good people who inspire us. But are our leaders really like that? Are they wise and virtuous? Are people like Donald Trump or Joe Biden really worth following without question?

As I observe the political elite, a group of bureaucrats enjoying the wealth taken from the public, displaying symbols of power, and masking their arrogance with seemingly confident smiles, I see little reason to adhere to the regulations they enforce upon me.

To such figures, I feel no obligation.

Yet, a profound debt is owed to humanity at large. It is this realization that propels our presence here, and within the sphere of cryptocurrency, we discover our avenue of rebellion — a digital frontier where individual autonomy stands resolute against the oppressive structures of traditional authority.

Crypto embodies our defiance — a rebellion against a system unworthy of its authority.

It’s a stand against coercion, servitude, economic ignorance, imperious attitudes, and ethical impotence. Our rebellion challenges the notion of seeking permission, representing a noble reclaiming of dignity and grace for free and sovereign individuals dedicated to peaceful civilization.

In truth, we need no permission to build great things, and this principle echoes the very foundation of America.

The state’s permission is but a facade, a trick tolerated by those afflicted with Stockholm Syndrome.

It’s a veil over our eyes, effective only because we’ve been too weak, too afraid, too helpless, too distracted, and often too comfortable to see beyond this veil.

In this exciting era, we are witnessing the dawn of a revolution where any two people on Earth can exchange value without the need for permission.

Now, consider this:

Does the idea of such freedom scare you, or does it genuinely inspire you?

Let’s reflect on our own perspectives. As good skeptics, we should scrutinize ourselves first. Are we agents of good, or are we contributing to chaos? It’s crucial to question if we are rebellious adolescents, unintentionally fostering a disorderly world without the need for permission.

Are we perhaps seen as subversive individuals, acting as immature and emo teenagers who fail to recognize the value of order and lash out against its very existence?

Critics may say we disrespect the need to follow rules, ignore the importance of permission, and overlook the benefits of central administration. They might doubt our care for society, fearing our approach could benefit bad actors and cause societal decline.

But, these claims are easily disproven when we recognize our actual aim. We aren’t seeking freedom from rules and permission altogether. Rather, we prefer rules that are clear and fair, different from the current subjective and unclear regulations. This difference is crucial to grasp our goals and intentions in creating a freer and more organized world.

We often hear the phrase “code is law,” but that’s not entirely accurate. In fact, code is superior to law, and we are here to showcase to the world the crucial distinction between laws made by people and laws based on mathematics.

Imagine comparing a meticulously audited and formally verified smart contract with the chaotic assembly of congressional legislation. (A smart contract is a self-executing digital contract that enforces terms through code, removing the need for intermediaries.)

Which one is more scientifically sound?

Which better represents order?

One is a product of engineering, while the other is a result of political maneuvering.

Consider a smart contract where every aspect is precisely defined through mathematics.

Now, contrast that with the Securities Act of 1933, where lawyers charge thousands of dollars to debate whether cartoon pictures of board apes are comparable to Florida orange groves. The absurdity of much financial regulation is evident, and it’s something we shouldn’t tolerate.

Yet, we all share a common desire for orderly, objective, and transparent markets. To the regulators and more traditional readers, understand that we all want rules. Rules are good.

This is the most crucial point I’ll make today: the traditional financial system relies on rules made by humans, not rules derived from mathematics. We believe society can do better, embracing a system built on objective, mathematical principles.

• The rules crafted by humans are shaped through a political process acknowledged as fallible and often corrupt.
• These rules depend on highly subjective human language, leaving broad areas open to interpretation.
• When it comes to enforcing these already ambiguous rules, predicting which infractions will be enforced is nearly impossible.

Take, for instance, Gary Gensler’s claim that all tokens are securities. Yet, the SEC hasn’t enforced against all tokens.

The most charitable explanation is they are under-resourced, but this still highlights the subjective and partial enforcement of financial regulation today.

If we truly care about orderly markets, how can we respect such a system?

Contrast this with any smart contract, which enforces 100% of the time.

Uniswap’s enforcement division is never under-resourced, and its rules are objective and transparent.

We no longer have to endure subjective rules in the realm of finance.

Instead of Uniswap being celebrated for developing orderly markets, they are persecuted by the agency tasked with ensuring market order.

If you want to label us as agents of chaos or dismiss as destructive anarchists, remember, we are the ones constructing financial rules that are enforced 100% of the time.

“The creative act is a letting down of the net of human imagination into the ocean of chaos on which we are suspended, and the attempt to bring out of it ideas.” — Terence McKenna

Code police is more reliable than human police.

We crave strong rules in our markets, and any rule easily broken is a weak rule.

Laws of physics, mathematics, and code have meaning, power, and consistency, deserving respect. On the other hand, man’s law is, at best, highly fallible and porous, an unfit foundation for building civilization in the 21st century.

The laws of men are comparatively pathetic in providing consistent order and are an inadequate foundation to propel civilization into the future.

Now think about rules. Some are made by people in suits (like the Dodd-Frank Act) — tons of pages that make your head spin. Then there’s crypto with Ave’s lending contracts — smart contracts, clear and direct. Which seems more modern to you? The old-school complexity or the tech-smart simplicity?

Examine the open-source collaboration of crypto against the backroom dealings of DC. Which rule-making process is more noble and virtuous?

We are not disruptors but architects of order….

While politicians mandate compliance at the point of a gun, the vast majority in the crypto/Web3 space are here to build peacefully and impose on no one.

Do not let them tell you that you don’t care about rules or society, for you are building superior technology for rules within society.

Politicians and regulators are the destabilizing forces compared to what we are constructing.

Some folks don’t like the idea of open finance without permission. But for those embracing it peacefully, there’s hope.

Challenges, scams, and persecution happen, but each challenge is a chance, and your work matters.

Compare this to traditional finance — lacking creativity and beauty.

In a world of confusing bureaucracy and societal challenges, crypto’s ambitious spirit stands strong. Rise above being a mere follower and embrace your noble role. Be a pioneer, reject interference, and question authority. Regulators could improve things by suggesting changes, but many don’t. The traditional financial territory was lost to the political circus long ago.

I strongly favor towards following moral values, math, and open code. Boldly, we create without forcing anything on others. Through real engineering, we’ve made the world’s first clear financial system, without tax money or permission.

It amuses me when people question if Bitcoin is real money because, in my view, it’s more genuine than our fiat currency — which I believe is the scam of the two.

This skepticism about traditional currencies, like the US dollar or the euro, stems from the fact that they aren’t backed by a physical commodity like gold.

Instead, their value relies on trust in the government issuing the currency. Critics like myself argue that governments can manipulate fiat currencies by printing more money, leading to inflation and diminishing the purchasing power of the currency.

This perceived lack of intrinsic value and the centralized control by governments are some reasons why I view fiat currencies skeptically.

Bitcoin, on the other hand, is often praised for its decentralized nature and fixed supply, making it immune to such centralized manipulations.

In a few years, people will likely panic as the fundamental principles of supply and demand take hold.

Consider the implications of opposing this development — being against objective, transparent rule sets and voluntary association among consenting adults.

Those who demand compliance and submission at the point of a gun reveal where they stand against humanity.

While they may mock and fight us, we will prevail in ethical arguments because man is a capitalist creature, and capital flows where it is respected.

Like water finding its course, capital will flow to decentralized alternatives as the permissions of the fiat system constrain and strangle.

True innovation can be messy, veering in unhelpful directions and back again, but capital will naturally flow to well-ordered decentralized finance, just as water flows indelibly to the sea.

Both will happen without seeking permission.