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 →