Bitcoin Endgames & The New Hyper-Agents
March 19, 2024·29 comments·In Brief
Bitcoin's institutional adoption is complete. Billions flow into ETFs weekly. The price climbs. But beneath this "success" sits an uncomfortable question: if bitcoin rises significantly, who exactly becomes powerful, and what do they do with that power once they arrive?
- The early adopters hold a hidden form of leverage. Someone who bought bitcoin for pocket change years ago now sits on positions worth millions. For that windfall to mean anything in the real world, they must eventually convert it back to dollars. This creates a fundamental dependency: they need late-arriving buyers to realize their gains. The mechanism works perfectly until it doesn't.
- Current elites are noticing, and their nervousness is palpable. When Jamie Dimon vacillates on bitcoin or Jim Cramer reverses position overnight, it signals something real. They understand that tens of billions in flows represent a transfer of something they value: stored power. The question isn't whether bitcoin will go up or down. The question is whose power shifts in the process.
- There are only two plausible endgames, and both involve massive wealth concentration. In the bullish scenario, early crypto natives become the new ruling class, accumulating enough capital to reshape institutions and policy. In the bubble scenario, it's the same outcome but messier, with ordinary people catching the falling knife while early movers still extract gains. Neither distributes power downward.
- The crypto community has absorbed a particular philosophy about what matters. HODL as faith. Tribal loyalty as virtue. Betting on collapse as sound strategy. But the skills that created those wallets may not translate to running agricultural policy, rebuilding infrastructure, or managing systems that billions depend on. The dopamine hit of "being right" can reinforce very particular lessons about how the world works.
- If bitcoin reaches significant valuations, we're not just changing the price of an asset. We're changing who sits at the table when decisions get made. History suggests new elites build new institutions. The question is whether those institutions protect more people or fewer. Whether they're more just or less. And whether the transition itself breaks things that are fragile.
Subscribe Today to Read More
Unlock instant access to this and hundreds of other evergreen essays that explore the world of narrative through hard science and human wisdom.
- Make more informed decisions as an investor and citizen.
- See through the nudges of Big Politics and Big Media.
- Become a better consumer of news.
- Maintain your autonomy of mind in a swarm of narratives.
- Join a community of more than 100,000 truth-seekers.
Looking for Deeper Insights?
Unlock exclusive market intelligence, trade ideas, and member-only events tailored for investment professionals and active investors with Perscient Pro.
VISIT PRO
DISCLOSURES
This commentary is being provided to you as general information only and should not be taken as investment advice. The opinions expressed in these materials represent the personal views of the author(s). It is not investment research or a research recommendation, as it does not constitute substantive research or analysis. Any action that you take as a result of information contained in this document is ultimately your responsibility. Epsilon Theory will not accept liability for any loss or damage, including without limitation to any loss of profit, which may arise directly or indirectly from use of or reliance on such information. Consult your investment advisor before making any investment decisions. It must be noted, that no one can accurately predict the future of the market with certainty or guarantee future investment performance. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.
Statements in this communication are forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements and other views expressed herein are as of the date of this publication. Actual future results or occurrences may differ significantly from those anticipated in any forward-looking statements, and there is no guarantee that any predictions will come to pass. The views expressed herein are subject to change at any time, due to numerous market and other factors. Epsilon Theory disclaims any obligation to update publicly or revise any forward-looking statements or views expressed herein. This information is neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation of any offer to buy any securities. This commentary has been prepared without regard to the individual financial circumstances and objectives of persons who receive it. Epsilon Theory recommends that investors independently evaluate particular investments and strategies, and encourages investors to seek the advice of a financial advisor. The appropriateness of a particular investment or strategy will depend on an investor's individual circumstances and objectives.
Comments
Great article, and unfortunately the scenarios you lay out of the consequences of $1m Bitcoin do seem plausible. But might there be a different – more hopeful - possibility that a surging Bitcoin price could act as a sort of modern day ‘bond vigilante’ that signals to Team Elite that it really does need to make some changes, impose some constraints, etc? So Bitcoin doesn’t reach $1m, but the fear of god (satoshi?
) that it puts into Team Elite as it keeps rising higher forces changes that lead to not only needed structural change, but also a lower Bitcoin price as its ‘Govt/Central Bank disaster insurance’ use case becomes less useful. The probability of this may be low, as Team Elite is more likely to act out of vengeance towards ‘outsider’ Bitcoin in a way that they wouldn’t to the ‘insider’ bond market, but…
And while you focus on the hyper success of Bitcoin possibly leading to an even more entrenched Big Tech oligopoly (Option B), it is worth mentioning the narrative (expressed well by Chris Dixon in his new book Read, Write, Own) that what crypto (crypto, NOT Bitcoin) is trying to build and can build is a future digital economy that is not dominated by Big Tech, but that instead decentralizes power and control over data and the internet to users. The hope is that this can be an arrow aimed at the heart of Oligopoly. Too good to be true, or too unrealistic? Maybe, and this stuff is still very theoretical and frustratingly slow to take off. But this is a very different and much more hopeful vision than the ‘Bitcoin is the one hard money to rule them all and I, the early Bitcoin adopter, will rule in our dystopic future’ vision.
Looking forward to discussing all of this in person at Epsilon Connect!
I want to caveat what I write next with the fact that I respect Dave’s deep knowledge of all things ETFs, and his willingness to go deep in the topic before voicing a strong opinion. Even as I think that many of the areas mentioned (ETH, smart contracts, NFTs and alt-coins) are irrelevant when what follows is an argument against the ascent of BTC alone.
I also have a couple of observations about the merits of his arguments that I think anyone reading this should keep in mind.
First of all, I personally believe that there is plenty to discuss about what this world will look like if the most hardened Bitcoin-maxis out there are correct about the end game scenario of our current economic system. So many valid points are ripe for the making along the lines of “be careful what you wish for” and so many strongly held beliefs among many Bitcoin-enthusiasts are, frankly, based on ignorance about the system we currently live in.
But Dave loses me right away when he attempts to label Bitcoin proponents overall as belonging to the fairly radical “techno-optimist/Fiat-is-a-crime/taxation-is-theft maxi” cohort of the Bitcoin universe. Perhaps this is the failings of hanging out on Twitter/X and believing that the loudest voices there are somehow representative.
There are plenty of people holding Bitcoin who are not hardened techno-optimists, who don’t believe that the the current system of fiat currencies represent a crime (however much we worry about the state of it) and certainly don’t consider all taxation to be theft. I am sure that Dave knows this, which is why I think it is disingenuous to use this red herring as a basis for the scaremongering argument that followed. Essentially, that “these are the crazy people who are coming for OUR money - imagine what that scenario will look like!”
However much I agree that the Bitcoin space (don’t even get me started on “crypto” in general (lumping BTC in with crypto is a separate powerful red herring…) has its fair share of “radicals” - it takes a real leap of paranoia to frame the issue of fiat versus BTC as a battle between a new elite of “crazy techno-optimists” versus salt-of-the-earth/ "work for a wage, pay taxes, and spend most of what they earn " people… If anything, this framing has it up side down!
From where I am sitting, it is the current system that does not care about people who work hard for their wage, pay their taxes and end up spending almost everything they have! If BTC lives up to its promise, it will be the savings technology that helps end the current madness, all the speculative investing (frankly gambling) that people who never aspired to be investors or speculators have been forced to engage in - just to be able to maintain the value of the money into retirement…
My own completely unfounded assertion, based on purely anecdotal personal experience since 2015 is that for every crazy number-go-up BTC holder, there are two others (possibly more) - carefully allocating a modest portion of their earnings in fiat currencies into BTC in the hope that it will allow it to maintain its value (and hopefully a little bit more) into the future. Personally, I have never sold Bitcoin - only purchased it - and at a modest level. If the notion of that qualifies as being “awful for humanity” then I don’t know what to say…
Moving on to the second scenario (in this artificial framing of only two different scenarios…) I am inclined to agree with the view that many will be hurt during the ascent of BTC. as money (as store of value, medium of exchange and unit of account). If you buy BTC today, without the ability to hold steady while it spikes, halves, makes new ATH and then halves again…well then BTC will not be a good fit for you. Neither are penny stocks, derivatives or any number of other readily available gambling opportunities. As Dave writes, gambling is the rational response of the dispossessed. If I disagree with something here it would be the backwards logic that everything that is gambled on by the dispossessed is by nature harmful.
Finally, I disagree deeply with the overall idea that we are looking at a world that pits early adopters of BTC against the current hyper-agents, rather than the alternative and less black and white way of thinking about this. Which is that BTC, with its PofW protocol, scarcity and decentralisation is not so much a shiny island to reside on, as it is a corrective force for the current system.
It has the power to create a course-correction for a system that would otherwise struggle to make the really tough decisions. BTC is not “out to destroy” the world as we know it, it wants to bring about a renaissance!
Alex Gladstein, Chief Strategy Officer at the Human Rights Foundation, wrote the following as part of the foreword in a very interesting book called “Bitcoin is Venice”:
Like I said in the beginning of this reply, I am very interested in nuanced discussion about what the slow or sudden breakdown of our current system will look like and how we go about making it as undramatic as possible. I absolutely agree that a meaningful portion of Bitcoin enthusiasts are blissfully ignorant of what they are cheering for. But those people’s ignorance and general lack of appeal is not, in my opinion, a very good argument against Bitcoin.
I agree completely that HODLing is a terrible basis for social mobility and I remain disappointed at the lack of serious applications built on BTC and ETH.
Still, what I can’t shake is the sense that its our current elites that are fueling the growing valuation of BTC and ETH because of misguided fiscal and monetary policies. Right now, BTC seems like a reasonable hedge against elite mismanagement and greed.
We all know that the pie is shrinking - that nominal wealth and actual wealth need to shrink their yawning chasm.
It’s our current elites that have given us sports gambling, payment for order flow and Zero DTEs. HODLing a little BTC and ETH seem like trivial crimes in comparison.
Our economics has been conditioned to thinking soft money good, hard money bad. It forgets that a very good majority of modern Western history was built on hard money (as defined by pegging state- and bank issued money to money with a naturally constrained supply.)
While transitioning from soft to hard money will probably be quite painful for many, not doing so seems only to delay and make the outcome even worse.
I’m reminded of Hugo Stinnes (Hugo Stinnes - Wikipedia). The ‘money quote’:
“Stinnes used his access to hard foreign currency during the period of inflation in the Weimar Republic to borrow vast sums in Reichsmark, repaying the loans with nearly worthless currency later. This earned him the title of “Inflationskönig” (Inflation King)”.
I’m concerned a future Wikipedia may say
“Saylor used his access to cheap convertible notes during the period of Bidenomics in the United States to borrow vast sums in dollars, repaying the loans with nearly worthless currency later”. This earned him the title of “Bitcoinkönig” (Bitcoin King)".
GBTC (the trust) was the ponzi vehicle that kited bitcoin in 2021-22. When it traded over NAV, Grayscale issued more GBTC and hoovered up all the bitcoin. This worked until GBTC no longer traded over NAV.
MSTR (the company) is the ponzi vehicle that is kiting bitcoin in 2024. When MSTR trades over NAV, Mike Saylor issues more MSTR debt and hoovers up all the bitcoin. This will work until MSTR can no longer issue cheap convertible debt.
On 3/06/24 MSTR raised over $680M to acquire more bitcoins. “The notes will be unsecured, senior obligations of MicroStrategy, and will bear interest at a rate of 0.625% per annum”.
On 3/11/24 MSTR disclosed in a regulatory filing it purchased about 12,000 bitcoins for approximately $821.7M in cash.
On 3/13/24 offered $500 of convertible senior notes due 2031.
On 3/19/24, MSTR disclosed in a regulatory filing it purchased 9,245 more bitcoins for $623M.
Talk about lack of pretense! I don’t know what, if anything, stops this, other than Bitcoin going back under $30K and staying there.
MSTR now owns ~1% of all the Bitcoin that will ever exist. Meet the new income inequality, same as the old income inequality.
I enjoyed reading about Stinnes, but there are a few issues with this comparison.
kiting is not an appropriate term, say what you want about Saylor (I am no Saylor evangelist, just an observer like everyone else) but he is not kiting anything. He is publicly acting on a conviction, within the current regulatory framework. Using debt to accelerate his position. If you believe that he is wrong, then it will right itself in the end. If you are concerned that he is right, that’s a different story.
Stinnes used his privileged position to access foreign currencies that others could not. Saylor is buying Bitcoin which is available for anyone to buy, at any time of the day. 24 hours, no account with GBTC or any other ETF required.
Agreed, the introduction of a “harder” form of money into our current system is no cure for inequality. It’s likely just going to look like a different form of the Cantillon effect observed in the wake of the GFC and the massive stimulus deployed.
The article proposes a problem with the potential futures it lays out. I don’t see anything from stopping anyone concerned with those futures from buying and HODLing Bitcoin as a counter strategy. It’s $65K-ish right now. If someone is that concerned Bitcoin might grow to $1M at some point in the future that the HODLers of today become so filthy rich they take over society… well that’s enough of a risk/reward scenario for them to warrant buying some coins to even the scales. Right?
I’m listening to Evgeny Morozov’s interview and this statement,
“This new regime, it’s not just feudal, it’s actually techno-feudal, in the sense that technology plays a key role in enabling these new tendencies.” seems relevant to the greater conversation on Epsilon …
Continue the discussion at the Epsilon Theory Forum...