"Toxic" Maximalists

This is a rather silly and disingenuous criticism, although quite common. It usually goes like this,

Bitcoin maxis are a toxic cult and this hurts adoption.

This is clearly disingenuous because no one would use this line of reasoning about other assets. Would you refuse to buy a house because a real-estate maximalist was a jerk on the Internet? And more importantly, why would anyone care about the opinions of Bitcoin maximalists, as opinions clearly have nothing to do with whether or not Bitcoin is true. Either it will hold value, or it won't.

If Bitcoin is true, it'll be adopted globally; not just by some worldviews and ideologies, but by all worldviews and ideologies. This is because it's money -- something all humans within this thing we call civilization must contend with.

As we explore this issue, we can also ask the lesser relevant question, are Bitcoin maximalists actually toxic?

What is Bitcoin maximalism?

Being called a 'bitcoin maxi' is about as offensive to me as being called a 'heliocentric maxi'
~ Ross Stevens

Let's first understand the terms. A Bitcoin maximalist (maxi) is anyone who saves in Bitcoin, and Bitcoin only. For those who view Bitcoin as an investment, a maximalist is one who stores wealth only in Bitcoin. They believe Bitcoin is the only viable monetary asset.

For those viewing Bitcoin as a gamble, a maximalist is all in. For the doomers, Bitcoin is a lifeline, the only remaining hope for our civilization they see as failing. For many, Bitcoin is an alternative to stockpiling guns and survival gear (although not mutually exclusive) -- in other words, fiat is failing, the plans to save it are horrible, and Bitcoin is our best hope for the continuation of civilization.

What is toxic maximalism?

This label of "toxic" originally came from shitcoin influencers (altcoins to be euphemistic). Whether it was FTX, BlockFi, or the Bitcoin hard forks, there has been an ongoing chorus of criticism from Bitcoin maximalists towards any perceived scam. And like any community made up of humans, there will always be those who are polite, and others who are not. Arguably, it was the less-than-polite voices that earned the "toxic" label.

The problem with this framing, of course, is that the "toxic" maximalists have been proven right, again, and again, and again. Anyone listening to the "toxic" maximalists would have come out clean from the labyrinth of scammy muck that is our modern economy.

Is that even toxic?

While there are of course bad actors in any group, especially online, outspoken criticism of an immoral financial system is clearly not toxic. Calling out a scam is not toxic, except maybe to the scammer. In almost every case where someone is complaining of "toxic maxis", you will likely find someone guilty of promoting scams, looking to benefit from immoral financial schemes (seigniorage, fractional reserve, and so on).

As a general rule, avoid anyone who is complaining about "toxic maxis" -- best case they're thin-skinned and immature; worst case it's a scammer who's upset they were exposed.

Maximalism is not priced in

Bitcoin maxis may seem like religious zealots, but they have proven, time and again, to be the buyers of last resort. They are why Bitcoin will hold its value over time, during bear markets and worse. Toxic or otherwise, Bitcoin maximalism is not yet priced in.

Bitcoin maxis are why the price will never go to zero. There will always be maximalists saving their life energy in Bitcoin. It is a reaction to both fiat and the failings of gold, and unless there emerges a more sound money, Bitcoin maximalists will remain.

In the worst case scenarios, where all the investors disperse, where the hype is dead, there will still be Bitcoin maximalists working and saving in Bitcoin, buying any Bitcoin you have to sell. Even if it's banned, maximalists will still be there -- in black and grey markets -- staying humble, stacking sats. Because of this, Bitcoin has a floor that is far above zero, and the only ceiling is as a global unit of account, a measure of the entire global economy. There are no fiat-priced highs where maximalists will stop buying, and no lows where they'll give up.

Maximalism is intrinsic value

Eventually, as Bitcoin gains global adoption, maximalists will just seem like everyday "savers" -- it is only now during the early adoption phase where Bitcoin is considered a speculative investment that "maximalist" is even a term. And while maximalists can seem like idealistic zealots (esecially to those uninformed cynics who do not yet understand the fundamentals), they are what gives Bitcoin its value during these critical moments of early adoption.

The durability of any monetary asset depends on a sustainable demand. This is why people are intuitively concerned with "intrinsic value" on any speculative investment. The very existence of Bitcoin maximalists means that Bitcoin has defacto intrinsic value and is already money (the hardest money to ever exist), albeit to a small subset of the population. Ultimately, this subset is the buoy that gives Bitcoin the needed (and growing) floor till it reaches mass adoption.

The problems with maximalism

Despite the positive benefits of Bitcoin maximalism, there is much to criticize in this space, especially as Bitcoin emerges from a secular culture in the midst of a meaning crisis with origins far older than fiat.

As we witness the failings of modernism and the progressive ethos -- which has led to an absurd clown-world of postmodern deconstructions of logic, math, morality, and meaning -- it is tempting to ascribe deeper purpose and even salvation to Bitcoin, to deify Bitcoin as if it offers personal redemption.

It is no different, and equally mistaken, to treat any worldly concern with sacred and religious reverence -- whether it's politics, activism, movies, or Bitcoin -- none of these will fulfill your very human need for purpose, let alone answer the fundamental questions of life.

Bitcoin doesn't fix everything

Bitcoin fixes one thing -- just one. Bitcoin fixes a problem of fiat, specifically the problem of seigniorage. That's it. Bitcoin doesn't fix anything else.

While the problems of seigniorage and the failings of fiat run deep -- especially as it enables corrosive and morally reprehensible bureaucrats to centrally plan an economy (into starvation and collapse) -- the underlying problems still exist, and are not solved by the mere existence of Bitcoin. Bitcoin won't provide a libertarian utopia. It won't eliminate central planners. It won't even remove fractional reserve.

All of our problems (except seigniorage) will still exist under a Bitcoin standard. Arguably, many of today's problems are intractable and unsolvable because of fiat. But even in this framing, Bitcoin isn't fixing these problems, Bitcoin just gives us a chance to fix them.

Bitcoin is not a religion

Let's dispense with the modern myth that we are not religious, that a secular worldview is even a sustainable possibility. Humans are religious creatures. We seek meaning with which to make sense of the world around us -- this is a religious impulse and it's inescapable. A "religious worldview" is what you use to make sense of what is happening around you, with meaning sufficient to overcome the suffering of life -- there is no default worldview, and pretending otherwise is a regression inevitably into nihilism.

And as we slide into nihilism, it's tempting to grasp onto anything that seems good and attach to it as a religious worldview that can make sense of the world. Bitcoin can seem to do this at first, as so many confusing and illogical things suddenly make more sense. The degradation of fine art makes more sense. The absurdity of central banks and politics makes more sense. But this is because we're living under the poisonous influence of fiat.

Bitcoin may be the antidote to a specific problem in our civilization, but it can not make sense of life nor provide purpose. In a healthy culture this would be obvious. Bitcoin is not -- and cannot be -- a religion.

Bitcoin is not self-justifying

Consider for a moment just how damaging are the effects of fiat -- from the unhealthy diets to the degenerate art -- the effects are everywhere. Perhaps the worst effect is the antihumanism of fiat-funded environmentalists believing we shouldn't have children, that we're polluting the earth and should die out as a species. These malthusian views are not only factually wrong but abhorrently evil.

Some Bitcoiners will disagree with the above, others will see it as self evidently true. Bitcoin does not give us an epistemology nor an ethical framework to know that malthusian views are evil. Nothing about being a Bitcoiner precludes one from evil antihuman worldviews.

Ulimately, Bitcoin cannot give us the framework to determine if Bitcoin is true. Bitcoin cannot give us a worldview that understands what truth is, let alone that there exists universal truth.

Bitcoin is not salvation

There is an all too common view amongst Bitcoin maxis that Bitcoin is redemptive, that Bitcoin is salvation. This belief is understandable, and it is backed by plenty of evidence -- people learning about Bitcoin are also improving their life, thinking about the future and saving towards a better future. Bitcoiners are having children, lots of them. They're attending church. This certainly sounds like redemption.

However, is Bitcoin the cause of this redemption? No, Bitcoin is not redemptive, truth is redemptive. To the degree Bitcoin is true, it will feel redemptive, as all truth does.

Deifying Bitcoin as if it is salvation, this will lead one astray -- an attachment onto this world that will bring only suffering. Such attachment and suffering lead into the same postmodern relativism of our existing secular culture (which birthed fiat). This in turn leads inevitably to nihilism.

There is a way out of this inevitable nihilism, and -- interestingly enough -- it is found in the unspoken presuppositions from which we first asked: is Bitcoin true?

To even ask this question precludes the existence of truth, a universal truth, a knowable truth. And we assume that pursuing this knowable truth is valuable, something that is good. Thus, there is an entire foundation of epistemology, ethics, mathematics, and meaning implied in asking this question. And this is, by definition, a religious worldview.

Bitcoin requires this religious worldview. Otherwise it cannot make sense, because without knowable universal truth, then nothing will or can make sense. And yes this can make Bitcoin feel redemptive -- but remember, it is only money, it simply depends upon the same foundation that our civilization was born upon (despite the modern degeneracy of moral and epistemic relativism).

To know if Bitcoin is true, this requires a deeper inquiry. It presupposes a religious worldview that sufficiently makes sense of the world as it really is, not as we wish it to be. Ultimately, Bitcoin is not your redeemer, but if you found your way to Bitcoin such that you are saving for the future and starting a family -- don't thank Bitcoin; don't thank God for Bitcoin -- thank God for offering you salvation.