HODL OR SPEDN & REPLAEC

I’ve penned and re-penned this post 3x in reality and replayed it dozens of times in my mind. I nearly had it perfect. Then, a “Burgers and Bitcoins” meetup with my local Bitcoin Maximalist Oeste gang in Portugal (big shoutout to the most formidable Portuguese maximalist group!) made me start from scratch. This topic is more twisted and polarizing than it appears, and I certainly don’t want to add fuel to that fire.

I think that there is more than enough division in Bitcoin already and most of it unnecessarily so. In fact, one of the greatest things about Bitcoin is the technology doesn’t give a fuck about why you are using it - not your politics, use case, agenda, narrative, bias, motive etc. Bitcoin is free to use by anyone at any time in any country - it’s completely neutral, borderless, agnostic, publicly accessible digital sound money.

Thanks for reading LIFEonBTC! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

However, let’s stay on track. This piece isn’t about Bitcoin’s merits as tech, but about which early adopter mindset will propel Bitcoin to a broader audience. We’re on the edge of a precipice. The bridge we build to the other side will determine if we focus on mere price exposure or build a robust economy based on sound money. I advocate for the latter, viewing the former as a potential pitfall.

So, what is HODL you ask and why could it be a trap?

The Bitcoin community is a fascinating beast. Whether you’re an OG or just got the Bitcoin bug in 2023, you’ll soon notice its tribes within tribes, all possessing distinct visions for Bitcoin. Broadly, there are:

• Maximalists

• Everyone else who backs Bitcoin but isn’t a Maximalist.

Without diving deep into this (since I’m pretty sure I’ll get roasted for it), it’s essential to note how these factions shape external perceptions of Bitcoin and its inner development.

Anyways, for those of you who don’t know HODL is a philosophy held primarily by Bitcoin Maximalists that began life as a misspelling of “I AM HODLING” posted on December 18th, 2013, on bitcointalk.org (You can see the original and now historic post here - I AM HODLING (bitcointalk.org) and hence a movement of holding on to Bitcoin no matter the volatility or price and this was good for Bitcoin in many ways.

In fact, HODL entered the CYRPTO canon beyond Bitcoin and became a rallying cry for those who believed in a crypto project regardless of the market state, bear or bull - i.e. if it was bad, it would get better just HODL and if it was good, it will get even better keep HODLING! It wasn’t always for the good though - many a rug pull used HODL mentality to keep the masses believing while the scammers orchestrated the shit coin dump.

But, HODL’ing has its dark side. While HODL’ing may vouch for Bitcoin’s “Store of Value” attribute, an extreme HODL attitude could delay its evolution as a “Medium of Exchange.” It might also peg Bitcoin as merely an asset for greedy institutional investors. A high USD/BTC price might seem appealing, but if your goal is to cash out into devaluing fiat, it’s a futile game.

If you exit early during a surge, re-entering becomes nearly impossible. It’s akin to selling a beachfront home bought at a low price—you can’t re-enter that market once you’ve left.

HODL advocates suggest leveraging BTC without selling. This could work but depends on your financial acumen and tools of choice—none of which will be Bitcoin. Essentially, you’d be trading pearls for onions and could still lose all your pearls in the end.

This is HODL’s predicament: wealthy in BTC, yet dependent on fiat for liquidity.

Imagine if our motto had been “HODL + SPEDN & REPLAEC.” Would the Lightning Network have progressed faster with more demand for swift, affordable BTC transfers? Would we have seen more Bitcoin POS systems, superior wallet interfaces, or more push for Bitcoin Core development to cater to these needs? Could Bitcoin have rivaled instant transfer tools like PayPal and Revolut earlier? Would it already be the prime option for the unbanked?

Most likely, yes. An adoption curve would have formed, favoring individuals over institutions. Institutions would eventually join, but on a foundation where Bitcoin is primarily about financial sovereignty, not just an addition to a company’s balance sheet.

No doubt, institutions will chase Bitcoin—after all, there’s only 21M BTC ever. But we dictate our journey by embracing Bitcoin holistically, not just by HODLing.

Thanks for reading LIFEonBTC! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.