Disclaimer: This is not investment advice. It is a personal essay by a small business owner currently holding Bitcoin and Apple stock. You are entirely responsible for your own investments.
1. Introduction
I am a student of the “Producer’s Philosophy.” In my exploration, I have found my views unintentionally aligning with those of “Bitcoin Maximalists.” The fundamental reason I seek “Producer Sovereignty” is that the democratic welfare state does not protect producers—especially small business owners. From this perspective, there is no reliable “hill to lean on” for value storage and asset accumulation other than Bitcoin. Bitcoin is the only asset that lacks a “Money Printer” and a “Power Player”—entities that distort asset distribution and ownership structures. Moreover, having existed for only 15 years, it is the only asset where “Time Leverage” remains truly alive. But what about Ethereum?
In this article, I want to discuss why my study of crypto led me to the conclusion that I should not invest in Ethereum. First, let me clarify: I am not a crypto expert. These are simply the organized records of my studies prior to investing. Therefore, my views may differ from those of technical experts; this is primarily a humanistic essay on history and operating systems.
To state my conclusion upfront: Trading assets via Ethereum is convenient, and it has the potential to become the starting point for the dollar-stablecoin era led by BlackRock. Investing with that perspective makes sense. However, Ethereum cannot be a store of value or a solution for individual sovereignty. While it uses “decentralization” as a slogan, it actually follows the narrative of the “Left-Anarchism” that Lenin failed to realize. These systems negate the state while simultaneously allocating resources based on non-market decision-making principles. In the long run, this invites “Printers” and “Power Players” into the market, diluting the system’s wealth. For now, individual sovereignty can only be secured through Bitcoin.
2. The Core and Contradiction of Left-Anarchist Thought (Lenin, James C. Scott, etc.)
(1) The Contradictory Attitude Toward the Masses
Let’s first examine the ideology of Left-Anarchism.
[The Cognitive Dissonance of Left-Anarchists]
Anarchists loathe state intervention in the market, advocate for self-sufficient economies, distrust bureaucrats, and believe that individuals should determine their own lives. However, in the texts of Left-Anarchists, there is a point where the logic becomes twisted. They despise state control and “Legibility” (the state’s ability to map and tax), yet at decisive moments, they rely on the brute force of the state or an organization. Lenin, the Spanish Left, and James C. Scott all fell into this trap. Vitalik Buterin is no different; while he speaks of decentralization, he is effectively building a Digital Aristocratic Republic.
Where does this cognitive dissonance come from? Their perception that centralized state bureaucracies are oppressive and extractive is correct. The problem lies in what comes next. While Right-Wing Anarchists argue that even security is more just and resources are allocated more rationally when left to the market, Left-Anarchists reject the market in pursuit of “Equality.” They claim that “Spontaneous Order” can arise through mass democracy alone. James C. Scott spent his career trying to prove this “wisdom of the masses.”
However, decentralization can never be achieved in a mass democracy that pursues equality. Instead, it inevitably gives rise to a centralized apparatus for resource allocation and the monopoly of violence. This is the fundamental contradiction of Left-Anarchism.
Why is this? First, the Austrian School posits that without a market based on private property rights, “Price Signals” do not emerge. In such a world, the incentive to “exchange” based on a producer’s comparative advantage disappears. Decisions like “Should we build a bridge out of iron or gold?” cannot be made. Since no one can judge rationally, the power to allocate resources is handed to the leader of a “Vanguard Organization” who has been delegated political legitimacy by the masses. Lenin and Stalin designated themselves as the “Wealth of the Nation,” believing they could replace the market by making judgments based on “Morality and Science.” The results were catastrophic. Because they decided all resource allocation according to their personal “tastes,” the harder they worked, the faster the country collapsed. For example, if over-investment is made in a certain sector and liquidation is blocked for “moral reasons,” the capital efficiency of the entire economy inevitably drops. Eventually, physical capital is depleted, and production grinds to a halt.
Second, no one wants to engage in production. In an egalitarian society that denies private property, the group that owns the means of production (the state) suffers the most. The thought “Why should I work hard when I can just take what’s produced?” becomes rampant among the populace. Since the state cannot stop the rent-seeking behavior of its citizens, it must monopolize violence to force them to produce. From a Western perspective, the Soviet Union proclaimed itself a nation of benevolence and “paternalistic elitism.” One might wonder how human rights-abusing forced labor could coexist with that. However, once you understand that the masses have an incentive to plunder the state, you realize that without forced labor, no one works, and everyone relies solely on rations. Therefore, the most centralized body must monopolize violence to enforce labor, and in the leftist worldview, this does not cause cognitive dissonance. This is why decentralization is doomed to fail.
[Ethereum’s Contradictions]
The Ethereum ecosystem is no different. Any system where decision-making is not guided by “Price” will inevitably give rise to a centralized resource allocation and violence-monopolizing apparatus, regardless of the founder’s goodwill or the “decentralization” pretext that provides a sense of liberatory catharsis.
This is related to the Proof of Stake (PoS) mechanism Ethereum has chosen. PoS is a system where the authority to create blocks and receive rewards is granted based on how much of the coin one “stakes.” In other words, network decision-making is conducted via “Majority Rule” rather than “Price.” This creates incentives for “partisan decision-making” that benefits specific powers at the expense of the entire asset market’s efficiency. The key point is that Vitalik Buterin, the developer groups, BlackRock, and retail owners do not share the same incentive structure just because they all hold Ethereum. For instance, BlackRock might be more interested in convenience and fees, while the core developers might focus on security, community, and decentralization.
As seen in Soviet history, when external threats arise or a new industry needs to be built—requiring a new search for optimal resource allocation—their views will diverge. Consequently, political negotiation becomes necessary, leading to the emergence of centralized decision-making bodies and “Power Players.” In the long run, this dilutes asset value. This is fatal for the founders within the Ethereum platform who claim to aim for individual sovereignty.
[The Buffet-style Leviathan: Recognizing Power Based on Taste]
Another reason why the existence of a “Power Player” in an asset market inevitably dilutes asset value is that their decisions are based on “Hypocritical Tastes.” While Vitalik Buterin emphasizes “Morality and Science,” it is also true that his decisions and policies are ultimately matters of “personal taste.” Because there is no concept of comparative advantage measured by price, reliability and consistency cannot be guaranteed in such a decision-making system.
For example, James C. Scott criticizes the state’s administrative violence throughout his work. Yet, his attitude shifts curiously when discussing the 1957 Little Rock desegregation crisis, where federal troops were deployed to protect Black students from white supremacist mobs. Scott affirms the state’s coercive force in this instance. Here, his “Buffet-style Leviathan” view of the state is laid bare:
- Legibility I Dislike: Tax collection, conscription, and administrative regulations are “dictatorships that destroy the human soul.”
- Violence I Like: Cracking down on racists or redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor—these are “Justice.”
Scott criticizes the “Scientific Utopias” that Lenin or the Spanish anarchists tried to build via administrative machinery as “statist violence,” praising instead the spontaneous order of the masses. Yet, he himself affirms the state’s physical power when it serves the “Justice” that fits his personal taste. By that logic, weren’t Lenin or the Spanish Civil War anarchists simply exercising power based on the “Justice” they believed in?
According to Scott’s logic, they too should be beyond reproach. This double standard—defining one’s own taste as “Noble Justice” and another’s as “Harsh Control”—is the inherent contradiction of Left-Anarchism. As Ethereum continues to grow and introduces new features and projects, it will inevitably face these same issues.
(2) Does the “Wisdom of the Crowds” Actually Exist?
Left-Anarchists hold a deeply contradictory stance on the wisdom of the masses. While they outwardly praise “collective intelligence,” even James C. Scott never seemed entirely convinced. This is because they harbor an “Enlightened Elitism” toward the common people. For example, Scott once scolded East German citizens for waiting at a crosswalk when not a single car was in sight, urging them to jaywalk as a form of “Anarchist Calisthenics.” Yet, at the same time, he portrays the masses “brainwashed” by Martin Luther King Jr.’s oratory as somewhat farcical and expresses respect for the mass murderer Mao Zedong. He implicitly acknowledges that a rioting mob can only be suppressed by force.
Ethereum is no different. Vitalik Buterin and the Ethereum Foundation advocate for “Pluralism,” claiming to build an ecosystem that overcomes the flaws of both individualistic liberalism and collectivistic socialism. To create a system where diverse groups coexist and cooperate, they apply logic that gives “extra points” to “relationships within the community.” Examples of this include:
- Quadratic Funding (QF): Giving more subsidies to a project funded by 100 people donating $10 each rather than one person donating $1,000.
- Soulbound Tokens (SBTs): Proving identity not by coin count, but by documenting which communities one has been active in and what skills one possesses.
- Quadratic Voting (QV): Increasing the cost of additional votes exponentially.
However, the final judge of what constitutes “cooperation” versus “selfishness” is ultimately Vitalik himself. This is the exact same Enlightened Elitism found in Left-Anarchism.
In any resource allocation system, using “morality” or “relationships” as a pretext to devalue those who spend more (violation of private property rights) or utilizing non-price allocation that underfunds those who could execute a project more efficiently (distortion of capital efficiency) will inevitably corrupt the market and diminish the system’s total wealth. The reason these “Vanguards” warmly trust the masses and advocate for community while refusing to relinquish the power to decide the rules of the game is that they secretly know the masses’ tendency toward rent-seeking.
For a community to flourish through symbiosis and voluntary participation, no one should be able to seek rent. Yet, mathematical formulas are not tools that can achieve this. Why should voting costs increase quadratically? Why not by a factor of 1.5 or 3? These are ultimately ideological judgments. And within those ideologies, rent-seekers will clash. Vitalik’s attempt to “seal” identities via Soulbound Tokens is likely an attempt to prevent “free-riding” by erasing anonymity. However, this is highly likely to devolve into an oppressive system that constrains entrepreneurs from discovering opportunities and freely pursuing profit within the platform.
Left-Anarchism and Ethereum seem to view the public’s desire for decentralization through too romantic a lens. The masses possess no noble ideals or inherent wisdom. The reason they hope for an autonomous ecosystem without a state is fundamentally because the state extracts excessive rent from them. Wasn’t this the backdrop of the Russian Revolution? However, the masses change their tune the moment they are the ones who can extract rent. For example, if the state collects no taxes from me but uses “other people’s money” to clear out thugs, track hidden assets, organize administrative networks efficiently, and straighten out the roads, the masses will support it. This is exactly how the welfare state operates.
I doubt Ethereum can suppress this predatory instinct of the masses through mere mathematical formulas or algorithms. Peace, development, and spontaneous order in a community only occur when those who spend the most get the most (recognition of private property) and those who perform the best get the most (allocation based on capital efficiency). Relationships, pluralism, and morality may sound pleasant, but they encourage rent-seeking and give rise to “Power Players” who moderate political discourse. Consequently, creative producers will flee the system as soon as a platform emerges that guarantees sufficient reinvestment profits and free business opportunities, leading to the eventual shrinking of the community’s wealth and scale.
Paradoxically, the more strictly a society excludes rent-seekers—those who demand distribution without producing—the wealthier and more attractive that community becomes. A wealthy community can then better care for the vulnerable. Conversely, when laws and morality are used to forcibly protect rent-seekers, producers flee. This leads to a shortage of resources and a shrinking population, eventually necessitating the “immoral irony” of discussing pension cuts. This is exactly the situation South Korea faces today. In conclusion, it is a logical contradiction for a “Non-market system”—be it a vanguard party or a mathematical formula—to lead decentralization.
(3) Conditions for Spontaneous Order and Wisdom: Recognition of Private Property and Exchange by Price
When any Altcoin platform becomes an “Ideal Free Market,” numerous entrepreneurs flock there to increase wealth. Let’s examine this. The conditions for maintaining a decentralized spontaneous order that enhances national wealth are clear:
- Recognition of private property rights.
- Investment of one’s own capital.
- Specialization based on individual comparative advantage.
- Exchange based on Price.
In such a system, information regarding resource allocation—based on comparative advantage and ownership status—is revealed honestly through Price without distortion. Looking at price fluctuations, entrepreneurs discover more “subjective arbitrage” opportunities (the thought, “I can make more money doing this!”), moving to increase resource allocation efficiency. Thus, the wealth of the entire network grows. Conversely, the more democratic or pluralistic principles are introduced that allocate resources beyond “contribution to production,” the more the price system is distorted and profit opportunities are constrained. Capital tends to flee such inefficient states or expel rent-seekers from the system.
The Lex Mercatoria (Law Merchant) of medieval Europe is an example. It was a spontaneous order created by merchants to protect themselves from the unstable laws and predatory taxation of monarchs. This apparatus existed for a single purpose: the protection of property rights. The core mechanisms that maintained this system were credit and social sanctions. If a specific merchant refused a court’s ruling or engaged in rent-seeking behavior that disrupted the order of trade, he was immediately and permanently expelled from the merchant network. This was an economic death sentence more powerful than a physical prison.
Bitcoin is similar to this order. Bitcoin is a system that:
- Recognizes private property rights.
- Requires capital investment via Proof of Work (PoW).
- Specializes in mining advantages.
- Exchanges based on Price.
Because it has no “convenient features” or “moral pretexts” other than the storage of value, rent-seekers cannot exist. Satoshi Nakamoto, the only person with the potential to become a “Power Player,” vanished. No one “seduces” people to come to the Bitcoin platform, yet that very fact draws in libertarians and governments alike.
Consider the 2017 User Activated Soft Fork (UASF) movement. When mining giants and exchange CEOs tried to improve “convenience” by increasing the Bitcoin block size to 2MB, individual users resisted and caused it to fail. This was because a larger block size would hand control of Bitcoin over to giant corporations. Unless it is an obvious measure that benefits all users (like a bug fix), Bitcoin does not change. Individual users don’t even need expert knowledge of Bitcoin; they just need to buy it on an exchange and put it in a cold wallet. Even if information exists in fragmented forms across the network, the act of making the best decision for one’s own interest based on that limited information results in the benefit of the entire network.
3. The Contradiction of Ethereum’s Narrative: An Aristocratic Republic Speaking of Decentralization
(1) Ethereum is an Aristocratic Republic dedicated to defending “Justice” according to its own taste.
Left-Anarchists praise the masses and demonize the market and the state. However, because they secretly do not trust the spontaneous order of the masses, they believed the state was selectively necessary to defend the “Justice” that suited their tastes. Of course, they believed the leaders of this “State of Taste” should be themselves. Lenin, Stalin, James C. Scott, and the Spanish anarchists all walked this path.
Ethereum is no different. The core logic of its smart contract system is this: “Individualism cannot solve public goods problems, and the state is too inefficient. So, let’s mathematically measure the network of relationships and reward cooperating groups.” This is effectively an “Aristocratic Republic” centered around Vitalik Buterin. Here, voting rights are divided by stake, the “intensity” of voting rights is determined by mathematical formulas, and subsidies are allocated based on arbitrary criteria.
But code is never fair. In the grand name of ecosystem expansion through asset tokenization, market participants inevitably have different self-interested goals. If decision-making is done “politically” rather than by Price, rent-seekers will inevitably arise to distort the efficiency of the system’s resource allocation. Whether the decision-maker is the current Vitalik or a future BlackRock, there is no guarantee that the self-interest of individual market participants will align with the interests of the network as a whole. Therefore, it cannot be an alternative as a means of decentralization against the welfare state, which protects rent-seekers through law and morality. Let’s look at a few events.
[The 2016 DAO Hack]
This is the most philosophically important event in Ethereum’s history. A smart contract called “The DAO” was hacked, and 3.6 million ETH were stolen. Led by Vitalik Buterin, the Ethereum camp executed a “hard fork” to roll back the blockchain. As a result, it split into Ethereum and Ethereum Classic. Why is this decisive? Because it was the moment they broke the core principle of blockchain—“Code is Law”—on their own. Under the guise of decentralization, they introduced a vanguard-centered aristocratic republic to defend the “Justice” that suited their tastes.
Bitcoin was different. When giant exchanges tried to increase block sizes for their own benefit, individual users protected the network by rejecting the change. The Ethereum ecosystem has already proven to be a system where voluntary order alone cannot resolve conflicts when individual self-interests clash.
[The 2017 ICO Scam Craze]
Ethereum allowed anyone to issue their own coin on the blockchain. This was the Initial Coin Offering (ICO). Just as companies raise capital by selling stock when they go public, blockchain projects raised funds by selling coins. People raised tens of millions of dollars with just a white paper. No actual product, no team—just an idea was enough. Blockchains for pets, dental health, cannabis, and even egg distribution appeared. Most development teams cashed out their coins and vanished. Investors lost 99% of their capital. Every single one of these scam coins was issued within the Ethereum ecosystem.
Of course, as a platform, it is difficult to hold Ethereum directly responsible. However, it is a fact that self-interest—seeking to grow the ecosystem by tolerating scam coins—was at play. In early 2017, the price of ETH was around $10, but by the end of the year, it hit $1,500. Vitalik Buterin and core developers were even listed as advisors for dozens of projects. This event solidified the perception that Ethereum was following the exact footsteps of Left-Anarchists who established aristocratic republics and ultimately sacrificed the masses.
[From Proof of Work to Proof of Stake]
For the initial price of a product to be formed, one must create a product by investing their own capital through Proof of Work (PoW).When a specific ‘functionality’ is proven at the earliest stage, utility is created, leading people to invest capital. Bitcoin put forward ‘censorship resistance’ as its core function and has faithfully maintained it to this day. In this regard, the functional utility of Bitcoin becomes evident when debt-ridden democratic welfare states increase holding taxes to secure tax revenue and enhance the transparency of all assets. This is because when one presses the ‘exit button’ in a country where populism has reached its peak, the state has no way to seize the assets as long as the owner holds non-resident status. From this perspective, the skepticism surrounding its asset value—which was questionable at its launch 15 years ago—can now be considered fully resolved.
Currently, to receive 1 Bitcoin, one must burn at least $60,000 worth of electricity. This creates a price floor where the price is higher than the marginal cost, giving it the character of a physical commodity. Comparative advantages arise as efficient and inefficient miners are distinguished. Resource exchange occurs as the more efficient miners focus on mining, while the less efficient sell their equipment or transition into AI data centers. Prices fluctuate through this process, and superior miners or “HODLers” who see entrepreneurial opportunities enter the market, continuously increasing resource allocation efficiency. Thus, the value of Bitcoin rises.
In contrast, Proof of Stake (PoS) grants the authority to create and verify blocks—and receive rewards—to those who hold a large amount of the cryptocurrency. If you hold coins in large quantities for a long time, you verify blocks and receive Ethereum. Currently, the moment BlackRock stakes ETH and seizes verification authority, they become the most powerful verifier in the ecosystem.
For those with capital to copy more capital risk-free means they become “Power Players” who distort the ownership and distribution structure of the asset market. To prevent this, Vitalik and the Ethereum Foundation will again try to make political decisions(technically packaged to feign neutrality), while BlackRock will have incentives to distort the market order by eliminating new entrants. Thus, in the Ethereum ecosystem, both “Money Printer” and “Power Players” exist to distort the price system. Furthermore, even the U.S. government is entangled in this system, as it views Ethereum’s PoS system as a security.
In Conclusion, Ethereum has completely failed as a narrative for decentralized assets. Since the narrative of permissionless contract execution as a decentralized asset has been compromised, the functional utility that once underpinned its asset value has virtually vanished. Unless Ethereum can continuously introduce new features to generate exchange value, the dilution of its asset value is inevitable. However, its long-term viability as a ‘market platform’ remains highly questionable, given its exposure to hacking risks (infringement of private property rights) and the influence of political decision-making—driven by those in power and their ‘money printers.’ Even if we consider the free trading of tokenized assets, a cornerstone of BlackRock’s ambitions, as a new function, it remains unclear why users should pay exorbitant gas fees on a platform that no longer holds a monopoly. Without a unique, non-replicable function, Ethereum is just another high-cost infrastructure competing in a crowded market, failing to justify its premium.
(2) Parallels Between Vitalik Buterin and Vladimir Lenin
Let’s compare the founders. Vitalik Buterin’s founding philosophy bears a striking resemblance to that of Lenin. Lenin used “Scientific Socialism” to try and turn Russia into a controllable machine. Vitalik uses “Mathematical Pluralism” to try and turn Ethereum into a designed utopia.
[Lenin’s Vanguard Party System]
Lenin was a revolutionary who praised the masses, yet simultaneously argued that a “Vanguard Party” must judge and lead on their behalf through “science.” Similarly, Vitalik believes that resource allocation based on mathematical models—like Quadratic Voting and Quadratic Funding—is more just than voluntary human transactions. However, the authority to design those mathematical models is restricted to Vitalik and a core group of developers.
Vitalik’s most notable attempt to secure “Soviet-style Legibility” is the Soulbound Token (SBT, 2022). These are tokens permanently tied to a specific wallet address. They allow one to upload “evidence of a lived life”—diplomas, certifications, career history, medical records, credit history, and community memberships—onto the blockchain. The intent to bypass distrusted entities like the state or Google sounds plausible. But ultimately, SBTs ask you to trust the Ethereum Foundation instead. While the goal is ostensibly to replace the state, how is this different from the Soviet “Scientific Utopia” that created the Vanguard Party?
[The Party General Secretary and the Digital Nomenklatura]
The Soviet Union had an elite class of Communist Party bureaucrats known as the Nomenklatura. Officially, there was a parliament and there were elections—but everything was decided by the Nomenklatura who supported the General Secretary’s views. Because the narrative of Lenin as the founder of the Soviet Revolution was absolute, his word was effectively law.
Ethereum’s PoS system is creating a similar Digital Asset Aristocracy. Officially, the more stake you have, the more rewards and voting rights you get. However, the overall operating policy is determined by the direction set by Vitalik, who occupies the “Founder Myth” and the “Public Good” narrative.
But what happens when BlackRock begins staking Ethereum? Just as Stalin outwardly respected Lenin during the power transition while effectively pushing him into the background as an “old man in the back room,” BlackRock is likely to do the same. If BlackRock seizes all the intersections where money flows and presents a superior vision for ecosystem expansion, Vitalik will find himself in the same position. Lenin’s will stated that Stalin should be removed from the post of General Secretary because of his coarse personality, but he could not stop the momentum of the tide.
BlackRock will move toward the goal of issuing dollar-linked stablecoins, asset tokenization on the Ethereum platform. Vitalik, unable to be satisfied with Ethereum merely being an “efficient network for dollar stablecoins,” will labor over designing complex governance structures. But that is the road Lenin already failed on; it inevitably leads to the emergence of centralized power apparatuses. Just as the decisions of the Soviet Communist Party did not align with the interests of the Soviet people, there is no guarantee that Vitalik’s direction will align with the interests of all Ethereum participants. Judging these future shifts will be the responsibility of the Ethereum investor.
📊 [Soviet Communism vs. Vitalik’s Pluralism]
| Category | Soviet Communism (Old Modernism) | Ethereum Pluralism (Digital Modernism) |
|---|---|---|
| Core Driver | Scientific Socialism (Marxism-Leninism) | Mathematical Pluralism |
| Control Tool | Internal Passports, Rationing | SBTs, Quadratic Funding, Complex Formulas |
| Ruling Class | Gen. Secretary + Nomenklatura | Founders + Core Group (Shifting to BlackRock) |
| Individual Sovereignty | Not Recognized | Not Recognized |
| Cause of Failure | Ignored spontaneous market adjustments | The “Decentralization” narrative has expired |
4. The Means to Secure Individual Sovereignty: Bitcoin
My conclusion is the same as that of the Bitcoin Maximalists. To resist a democratic welfare state that seeks to plunder through various means—crypto holding taxes, exit taxes, citizenship taxes—and to secure individual sovereignty, you must hold Bitcoin in a cold wallet.
Of course, the state will try to impose taxes by blocking every exit point where you might cash out. That is a problem for later. Once you acquire the “shield” of being a non-resident for tax purposes, paths to bypass these hurdles will open. Ethereum can be an object of investment. It is even essential for the expansion of the crypto ecosystem. However, it cannot be the ultimate insurance for protecting one’s sovereignty as an individual. The more I study the history of Ethereum, the more it overlaps with Lenin and the Soviet Union he founded:
- An Aristocratic Republic that praises the masses while secretly distrusting them.
- Elitism that believes a sweet utopia can only be achieved by them.
- A series of “reforms” that negate spontaneous order systems.
- Resource distribution heavily skewed toward early founders (The initial 72 million ETH).
- A political decision-making system that encourages rent-seeking behavior.
Left-Anarchists do not negate power itself; they merely negate power they cannot control. Ethereum’s governance follows the same logic: “The code controlled by our elite is good, while the law controlled by the state is evil.” Only the subject of power changes.
In Bitcoin, the person who invests the most capital or mines most efficiently gets more. It has no other function. That is why people flock to it. Ethereum constantly tries to “seduce” people with sweet words to grow its platform. That is the problem. A network where rent-seekers gather to make political decisions always tends to create a central apparatus that performs self-destructive, partisan resource allocation—just like the Soviet Union or modern-day South Korea. Decentralization ends there.
Surprisingly, after filtering altcoins based on just two criteria—1) the absence of a ‘Money Printer’ and ‘Power Player,’ and 2) being directly linked to Bitcoin—only about 5 or 6 coins were worth studying. I’m currently looking into Stacks (STX) and have already invested a small amount. When time permits, I will organize my thoughts and upload them as well.
For more;
- Why I Admire Warren Buffett and Still Buried Bitcoin in Stalin’s Hometown
- Why I Sold All My U.S. Stocks and Became a Stray Dog in Georgia(Bitcoin 70 / Apple 30 Portfolio)
- KOSPI at 5,500, My Bitcoin at -20%: A Sovereign Individual’s Survival Philosophy Guide for the 2027 Collapse
- Diary – Tracing Stalin’s Shadows, Part I: The Meeting with Lenin
If you enjoyed this article, you can support the project – thank you!