A Schelling point is a place people converge on without coordination because it feels obvious, fair, and focal. It doesn’t require enforcement. It doesn’t need permission. It works because people expect others to choose it freely.
Bitcoin is best understood this way—not merely as technology or money, but as a moral Schelling point.
What Makes a Schelling Point “Moral”?
A moral Schelling point:
- does not rely on coercion
- is not optimized by central authority
- emerges through voluntary alignment
- coordinates behavior under uncertainty
- punishes betrayal organically (loss of trust)
Morality, at its core, is not rule-following—it is volitional alignment around shared meaning.
Bitcoin fits this definition precisely.
Why Bitcoin Is Not Just Technical
Bitcoin did not win because:
- it was the fastest
- it had the best UX
- it was mandated
- it was centrally marketed
It won because it answered a moral question that had no neutral referee:
What money can we trust when trust itself is broken?
That question cannot be solved by:
- policy
- authority
- expertise
- law
It can only be solved by free agents choosing alignment.
The Volitional Core of Bitcoin
Bitcoin requires:
- opting in
- self-custody
- personal responsibility
- irreversible decisions
- acceptance of consequence
No one is forced to use it. No one is compelled to trust it. No one is guaranteed safety from their own mistakes.
That is not a bug. That is the moral feature.
Bitcoin presupposes real volition.
Bitcoin as a Coordination Without Coercion
Bitcoin coordinates:
- miners
- nodes
- developers
- users
- adversaries
Without:
- contracts
- central enforcement
- legal monopoly
- moral exemption
Each participant implicitly says:
“I will align my actions with this rule set because I expect others to do so freely.”
That is a textbook Schelling equilibrium.
But more than that—it is moral alignment:
- no counterfeiting
- no special privilege
- no insider access
- no bailout
- no exemption from rules
Why Fiat Is the Opposite
Fiat money is not a Schelling point.
It requires:
- legal tender laws
- taxation enforcement
- institutional trust
- moral outsourcing (“the system decides”)
- blame diffusion
Fiat survives by denying volition:
- “You must use this.”
- “No one is responsible.”
- “It’s just how the system works.”
Bitcoin survives by demanding volition:
- “Choose.”
- “Verify.”
- “Take responsibility.”
Moral Consequences of Using Bitcoin
Bitcoin doesn’t make people good. It makes moral evasion harder.
It forces clarity around:
- ownership
- consent
- time preference
- theft vs permission
- responsibility vs excuse
This is why it attracts:
- people allergic to coercion
- people who care about integrity
- people suspicious of moral laundering through institutions
And why it repels:
- rent-seekers
- moral delegators
- those who benefit from opacity
Bitcoin and the Triadic Model of Man
Bitcoin activates all three axes:
Somatic
- real cost (energy, time, work)
- no free creation
- no pain-free shortcuts
Intellectual
- transparent rules
- verifiable truth
- open critique
Volitional (Primary)
- voluntary adoption
- personal custody
- moral responsibility
- alignment without force
Bitcoin works because volition is real.
If volition were an illusion, Bitcoin could not function.
One-Sentence Summary
Bitcoin is a moral Schelling point because free agents, without coercion, align their wills around a rule set that refuses privilege, demands responsibility, and makes betrayal visible.
Final Thought
Bitcoin doesn’t replace law, ethics, or religion.
It exposes whether they were ever grounded in voluntary alignment to begin with.
That is why it feels threatening. And why it endures.