This substack article by Nic Carter is well worth the read. There are a few things about it that I take issue with, including but not limited to Nic’s take on the blocksize war (mentioned only in passing in this article). I also get the sense that Nic veers into straw-manning: Here’s What All Those Crazies Believe, and We All Know Who They Are. Perhaps I am being pedantic and assuming too much, but I’d prefer Nic to describe Toxic Bitcoin Maximalism as a tribal narrative, one with strong opinions that are worth having but one that unfortunately ALSO contains a loose collection of toxic delusions and logical fallacies, and acknowledge that on an individual basis, most of Them (the Toxic Maximalists) definitely do not believe most of the aforementioned toxic elements.
Having said that, the realization that a toxic and self-destructive tribal narrative exists and has a strong emotional pull on — let’s be honest, virtually ALL of us — is an important one. We should give this narrative the sober deliberation it deserves, if only so that we can shield ourselves against its pathologies.
I have long believed that it should fall to neuroscience as a discipline to explain why tribal toxicity exists so prominently as a part of human nature. Not just bitcoin maxis, not just religions, but in political ideologies, academic disciplines, etc. Each of these communities is glued together by a tribal narrative. And those narratives sometimes become toxic. To draw attention to the pathology of Maximalism, as Nic does here, is worthwhile, but not enough. What do we do about it? “Expunge it!” would be the implication, in the absence of any other recommendations. But this would be akin to drawing attention to the pathological features of autoimmune disease to a crowd that has no understanding of the immune system. To treat autoimmune disease, ideally you will optimize the immune system, not expunge it — which would, of course, just kill the patient. But one cannot optimize something if one does not know what it is or why it exists. And one cannot treat the pathologies inherent to any tribal toxic narrative without understanding the tradeoffs that are associated with tribal narratives in the first place.
Tribalism exists for a reason. The so-called “toxic maxis” made valid arguments when they compared their toxicity to an immune system that, when done right, protects newbies from scam artists. But when do the actions of the immune system veer from beneficial into pathology? The naive belief, that we don’t need it (whatever exactly “it” is — don’t care, doesn’t matter) and are better off without it, is itself its own form of virtue signal. It is the failure to acknowledge and appreciate that a distinction exists between the greater tribal narrative (most of it non-toxic) from its toxic elements. And in my humble opinion, the temptation to straw-man is one of the early warning signs of the toxic tribal thought process. Beware its tradeoffs.
Is it possible, or desirable, to have a community of “bitcoin maximalists”, held together by — well, by whatever it is that holds communities together — without the pathologies? I would hope the answer is yes. In which case, the ideal outcome is not the defeat or the downfall of maximalism — which Nic’s article would seem to celebrate — but its cultivation and curation into a healthy state of being. A community with a healthy immune system, but without the pathology of autoimmune disease. A vast tribal bitcoin maxi narrative, minus the toxic fallacies and delusions. Would Nic agree? Don’t know, I’ve never met or discussed this with him. Tbh I don’t know if my immune system analogy has been explained very well. Maybe one day I’ll get my agent to help me do a better job.
tl/dr: Read Nic’s article. It’s not the final word, but it makes important contributions to the story of bitcoin, especially in the aftermath of the coldcard fiasco.
A Second and Final Eulogy for Bitcoin Maximalism
Bitcoin succeeded beyond its creators’ wildest expectations. The maximalist ideology built around it did not.
