The concept that permissionless technology ≠ permissionless adoption is very misunderstood in Bitcoin.
This concept is called "The Perimeter Capture Rule".
It means that you have to watch the perimeter:
- cloud AUPs (Acceptable Use Policies),
- app stores,
- payments (exchanges, banks),
- policy.
Control at the perimeter beats control at the center (permissionless, global).
If a technology looks uncontrollable, ask: "Can a perimeter actor rate-limit (policy, app stores), de-list (exchanges, banks), de-prioritize (policy, app stores, exchanges, banks)?" If yes, price the center like a tenant.
Many Bitcoiners often say: "We have the best tech, it's permissionless" and I have to agree, the tech is brilliant.
However, is the tech good enough to compensate for the deficiency in the psychology of the user base?
And when you cut the ideology, the answer here is no.
Technology can't solve human preference for safety + ease (scale is assumed, I'm not talking about niche Bitcoin communities, I'm talking about a parallel to CBDCs/stablecoins global payments network).
View quoted note →
Thread
Login to reply
Replies (3)
From a personal perspective, I can tell you that using BTCMaps and paying with Lightning is becoming easier with adoption, but I recognize that a psychological push is necessary to break the inertia of the majority, and frankly, I don't think that can happen. So I'll try to build my personal community and live within it until BTC is fully controlled.
Yes, exactly.
You've described a behavior that strays away from the defaults (introduces friction) and the masses follow the defaults.
The masses go to Amazon, Walmart, Costco, not to small Bitcoin hubs.
These large retailers will never directly accept Bitcoin payments because that would mean competing with the US government and they are subsidiaries of the government.
Also agree that building your personal community is the way. It also works with or without Bitcoin.
I previously wrote about how permissionless technology ≠ permissionless adoption.
When managing money, it's very important to understand mass behavior, incentive structures, and why people act against their own long-term interests.
Here are the four engines of mass behavior:
1) Incentive gradients (what pays now)
- People follow net-effort -> net-reward gradients, not ideals. If the reward is near-term, visible, and certain - while the cost is delayed, abstract, and probabilistic - behavior will skew short-term every time.
2) Defaults & frictions (what's easiest)
- Behavior follows lowest-friction paths. Defaults, one-click choices, and pre-checked boxes beat sermons. Tiny frictions shift billions of decisions.
3) Narrative & identity (what feels right)
- People protect self-image and in-group membership even when facts conflict (identity-protective cognition). The story that preserves belonging wins over the truth that threatens it.
4) Feedback loops (what reinforces)
- Immediate reinforcement (likes, payouts, relief) rewires habit faster than distant outcomes.
Why even "smart" people still defect from long-term:
- Meta-incentives dominate beliefs. Even smart people first decide what benefits them (status, income, network), then craft rationalizations.
- Compartmentalization. Professional intelligence ≠ incentive literacy. People who model markets still miss their own behavioral accounting.
- Social risk > factual risk. Getting ostracized today feels worse than being wrong in five years.
How to tell if you're acting against your own long-term interest:
- If the benefit is now and the cost is later, assume you're under-pricing the cost.
- If a choice preserves belonging, assume you're over-weighting identity.
- If the platform chose the default, assume it benefits them more than you.
- If the metric is public, assume it's being gamed (by you or to you).
- If a habit depends on willpower, assume it will fail under stress.
How to consistently pick long-term:
- Automate the boring: savings, skills, sleep, strength, deep work.
- Deliberately add friction to bad paths.
- Make identity explicit: tie your reputation to long-term behaviors.
People don't "fail" because they don't know; they fail because the environment pays them to fail now and bill them later - in cash, status, and belonging.
This is similar to how Bitcoiners are sabotaging themselves by buying Paper Bitcoin with no understanding of the long-term consequences.
More context:
View quoted note →
The antidote isn't stronger opinions; it's stronger defaults and pre-committed rules. Read the incentives; expect the behavior; position ahead of it.
The concept of people acting against their own long-term interests becomes very obvious when you start asking:
- "If the default were the opposite, what % of people would still end up here?"
- If the answer is "probably <30%", the current outcome is default-driven, not preference-driven.
View quoted note →