This is an excellent overview of the ideology and worldview of Bitcoin maximalism. Well done. I have written a piece analyzing the BIP-110 fiasco and the purist/remnant ideology and worldview that sustains it.
Questioning certain beliefs or ideas does not necessarily equate to attacking believers or denying their value as human beings. In fact, any system of thought should be open to discussion, examination, and criticism. Any ideology that is absolutized…whether religious, political, or nationalist…can be exploited to create division or even violence. Therefore, the important thing is not simply to deny faith, but to encourage critical thinking, enabling people to maintain their beliefs while respecting facts, others, and different perspectives
Good article. I consider myself a “heterodox maximalist.” I have thought a lot about Bitcoin’s religious dimension and wrote an essay about it a year ago, which I recently published here on Substack (it is in Spanish): https://diletantedigital.substack.com/p/por-los-siglos-de-los-siglos. Being the first cryptocurrency and having an immaculate conception are two extraordinarily powerful founding myths.
You write that, as Bitcoin went mainstream, it attracted a more populist and anti-establishment crowd. As I write in my essay, shortly before discussing toxic maximalism: “While XRP devotees resemble a cult eagerly awaiting the arrival of a rescue ship with limited seating, Bitcoin offers a broader and richer narrative, articulated around individual sovereignty and, above all, an explicit search for Truth.” Toxic maximalists can be extremely unpleasant, but I think their quasi-religious approach makes sense, and I partly subscribe to it myself, even though I use many other chains. (Shame! Sin!)
You make a great point when discussing the Filters affair. Is ironic because you write that “maximalism feeds off Bitcoin, rather than the other way around,” and I have heard very similar claims from people who consider themselves maximalists. Another common refrain among maximalists opposed to BIP-110 is that “pleb nodes don’t matter”—which is obviously true. In that sense, I think the BIP-110 episode has been very healthy and it relates with that "explicit search for Truth".
A lot of maxis, at least among those I know in the Spanish-speaking ecosystem, have now accepted stablecoins and the possibility that Bitcoin will never become a widely used medium of exchange. For ideological reasons, they promote Liquid or Rootstock for these purposes. But I suspect many of them know this is partly a LARP. I once pointed out to a Spanish podcaster, who was describing Lightning as the connective tissue linking Bitcoin’s different layers—Liquid, Rootstock, eCash, and so on—that the value of WBTC on Ethereum is far greater than the amount of BTC represented across all those officially sanctioned Bitcoin layers combined. He replied that Ethereum cannot be considered a genuine Bitcoin layer two because it lacks a unilateral exit mechanism to the Bitcoin blockchain, which is technically correct, but he acknowledged my broader point.
Bitcoin dominance remains around 60 percent, and it may never fall below 50 percent again. Other chains are not subordinate to Bitcoin at the protocol level, but Bitcoin remains the gravitational center of the crypto economy. Perhaps maximalists only need to acknowledge that other blockchains function as additional layers of King Bitcoin.
Great post as always. Love the comparison to the Seventh-Day Adventists.
I pay no attention to Bitcoin debates personally but I am worried about quantum. That seems like the only thing the maximalists should be discussing right now, they can save the other debates for later.
Interesting that you use ETFs for your BTC. I'm still in the self-custody crowd but now you have me reconsidering.
Thank you for sharing; I'm glad you enjoyed this article. Your mention of quantum mechanics is very interesting... I'm also interested in that. After all, technological advancements often bring new unknowns and challenges, and people sometimes focus too much on current debates while ignoring the factors that could truly change the future.
Regarding Bitcoin ETFs. I believe that self-custody does offer greater control, a principle upheld by many early cryptocurrency holders. However, the advantage of ETFs lies in lowering the entry barrier while resolving some security management and operational complexities, making them particularly suitable for those who want to allocate assets but don't want to bear the risks of private key management.
Spot on. One question- are ETF / custodial BTC more susceptible to govt seizure than “properly” held BTC in hardware wallets? Likely only a tail risk but worth considering
Yes, if you are concerned about that then hold physical BTC, but if you are going to do that, use a multi vendor multisig with a provider like Casa. Single device hardware wallet is fundamentally too risky. As we learned with Coldcard. Ultimately those setups are just too fragile
Theoretically, yes, Bitcoin in ETF or custodial form is more susceptible to government or regulatory influence than self-custodial form because the assets are effectively held by regulated financial institutions that must comply with legal requirements.
The core advantage of self-custodial is its "non-reliance on third parties" …as long as the private key is secure, control of the assets remains in your own hands. However, it also introduces other risks...loss of private keys, improper safekeeping, inheritance issues, and personal security risks. Ultimately, it depends on your choice.
Here’s what my agent had to say about your post…seems on brand, right? Short version: Carter’s target is Bitcoin maximalism, not Bitcoin. His core claim is that Bitcoin succeeded as a scarce monetary asset, while the surrounding “BTC replaces fiat / everything else is a scam / self-custody is always superior / halvings mechanically guarantee price” ideology has repeatedly overpromised.
His strongest points:
• Maxis were badly wrong on stock-to-flow, imminent fiat collapse, nation-state adoption, Bitcoin payments winning, and every alt going to zero.
• Stablecoins—not BTC—won actual transactional crypto usage.
• The Coldcard exploit is real and ugly: a weak-seed flaw exposed wallets to brute force, with roughly 1,800 BTC reportedly stolen. That decisively kills “Bitcoin-only self-custody is automatically safest.” TRM Labs
• Bitcoin’s future security budget is a legitimate unresolved problem: current fees are tiny relative to subsidy, and subsidy halves indefinitely. It is not an imminent protocol death sentence, but anyone calling it FUD is being unserious. live fee data
Where he overreaches:
• He groups a lot of distinct people under “maximalist,” then prosecutes the loudest/most ridiculous claims as representative. Fair cultural critique; weaker intellectual taxonomy.
• “Alts still exist” is not proof that most have durable value. The relevant question is value capture, survivability through cycles, and whether users need the token—not merely fee revenue or activity.
• BTC not replacing fiat or becoming retail payments does not impair the more credible thesis: non-sovereign, digitally native monetary collateral / monetary asset. Gold has never been a medium of exchange either.
• He leans hard on 2021-to-now price stagnation. That’s a conveniently chosen window; it cannot establish the long-run asset thesis either way.
• His stated conclusion—ETF custody for almost everyone—is sensible for ordinary investors, but he goes too far in treating self-custody as broadly obsolete. It remains a valuable option; it is just not morally mandatory nor operationally suitable for everyone.
My take on Nic: worth reading, not worth outsourcing your conclusion to. He’s a very good analyst of crypto incentives, institutions, and hypocrisy; he’s also a talented contrarian who writes like a prosecutor and likes landing the blow. In this piece, his facts and diagnosis of maxi culture are mostly strong. His sweep from “maxi claims failed” to “maximalism is effectively dead / BTC has stagnated” is rhetorically juiced.
The mature position is pretty boring—which means it’s probably right: own BTC as a high-volatility monetary asset; do not treat it as a religion, a guaranteed macro hedge, or your entire portfolio. Use self-custody when its sovereignty benefit exceeds its operational risk; otherwise use robust institutional custody/ETFs. And never confuse being right about Bitcoin with being right about every other asset, protocol, or institution.
One small yellow flag: the email says BTC is ~$63k, but the live feed is roughly US$77k today—so it was written/edited against a stale price snapshot. Not fatal, but annoying in a piece lecturing everyone else about epistemics.
So much rambling; frustration vibes. An asset that is only 17 years old and you are treating it like a failure experience that has been around us for over a century. What a waste of time.
I am not a great example of anything. I am a generic Bitcoin investor. Your article (essay?!) simply proves the point that you are not as smart as you think. "blah blah, maximalists are wrong" .... "blah blah blah, mind you, I still invest in Bitcoin" blah blah blah"...you try to cover all angles. How is this related? Who cares about maximalists? Are they the Bitcoin CEOS? Has Bitcoin failed? Is the dollar going strong? So many questions...in the end, it reads as if you are mad at some Bitcoin Maximalists who likely did not treat you well or have made much more money than you. In any case, all the best. The narrative is there and is yours: enjoy it!
I agree, and I appreciate your feedback. In my opinion, we don't need to listen to anyone's ideas or advice; no one has a definitive answer. I believe a healthy investment culture should allow for different voices. Some believe Bitcoin will change the financial system, some think it's just part of asset allocation, and others are skeptical... These different perspectives are themselves part of the process by which the market forms prices and consensus. Ultimately, time will tell which judgments are correct. As you said, the story continues, and we are all involved in writing it
Carter sees the "toxic maximalists" moving goalposts when their price predictions fail, but somehow doesn't notice Christianity's equally impressive gymnastics around unfulfilled divine promises. The Bible is riddled with failed prophecies and broken timelines, but the show goes on through centuries of theological reinterpretation. At least Bitcoin maximalists have only been wrong for a decade, not two thousand years
1) I see BTC as the first serious attempt to wrest control of money from govts. Similar to how forced religious allegiance (by govt diktat) was widely smashed a few centuries ago. Huge effort, big payoff. If we can do it for money it will transform societies
2) Satirist TechLead proclaims the end of BTC. A very serious note half way through: various factors including "wrench attacks" have dampened pleb advocacy. This will prove to be a major, important and negative trend.
This is an excellent overview of the ideology and worldview of Bitcoin maximalism. Well done. I have written a piece analyzing the BIP-110 fiasco and the purist/remnant ideology and worldview that sustains it.
https://dollars2bitcoin.substack.com/p/bip-110-strategic-recalibration-and?r=l1s1q&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
Hey Richard, are you a blockchain expert?
I’m a strategic analyst and advisor.
That's so cool! Is it mainly in the investment field?
No. I help discerning leaders and strategists separate signal from noise, understand the other side’s thinking, and act effectively under constraint.
Oh, I see. That sounds like an interesting area. I work in healthcare, I'm interested in artificial intelligence, and of course, investment...
Applying AI to healthcare?
"I say this not to criticize anyone’s faith, but to illustrate that invalidation of a testable belief does not necessarily doom a movement."
If that is not a criticism, then what is?
And, very well, absurd thinking absolutely must be exposed, as it won't vanish on its own.
The social capital conferred by a deep well of credulity is too much to pass on.
Believers beware: those who make you believe absurdities will make you commit atrocities.
One would have thought today's world offers enough illustration of this point.
Questioning certain beliefs or ideas does not necessarily equate to attacking believers or denying their value as human beings. In fact, any system of thought should be open to discussion, examination, and criticism. Any ideology that is absolutized…whether religious, political, or nationalist…can be exploited to create division or even violence. Therefore, the important thing is not simply to deny faith, but to encourage critical thinking, enabling people to maintain their beliefs while respecting facts, others, and different perspectives
Good article. I consider myself a “heterodox maximalist.” I have thought a lot about Bitcoin’s religious dimension and wrote an essay about it a year ago, which I recently published here on Substack (it is in Spanish): https://diletantedigital.substack.com/p/por-los-siglos-de-los-siglos. Being the first cryptocurrency and having an immaculate conception are two extraordinarily powerful founding myths.
You write that, as Bitcoin went mainstream, it attracted a more populist and anti-establishment crowd. As I write in my essay, shortly before discussing toxic maximalism: “While XRP devotees resemble a cult eagerly awaiting the arrival of a rescue ship with limited seating, Bitcoin offers a broader and richer narrative, articulated around individual sovereignty and, above all, an explicit search for Truth.” Toxic maximalists can be extremely unpleasant, but I think their quasi-religious approach makes sense, and I partly subscribe to it myself, even though I use many other chains. (Shame! Sin!)
You make a great point when discussing the Filters affair. Is ironic because you write that “maximalism feeds off Bitcoin, rather than the other way around,” and I have heard very similar claims from people who consider themselves maximalists. Another common refrain among maximalists opposed to BIP-110 is that “pleb nodes don’t matter”—which is obviously true. In that sense, I think the BIP-110 episode has been very healthy and it relates with that "explicit search for Truth".
A lot of maxis, at least among those I know in the Spanish-speaking ecosystem, have now accepted stablecoins and the possibility that Bitcoin will never become a widely used medium of exchange. For ideological reasons, they promote Liquid or Rootstock for these purposes. But I suspect many of them know this is partly a LARP. I once pointed out to a Spanish podcaster, who was describing Lightning as the connective tissue linking Bitcoin’s different layers—Liquid, Rootstock, eCash, and so on—that the value of WBTC on Ethereum is far greater than the amount of BTC represented across all those officially sanctioned Bitcoin layers combined. He replied that Ethereum cannot be considered a genuine Bitcoin layer two because it lacks a unilateral exit mechanism to the Bitcoin blockchain, which is technically correct, but he acknowledged my broader point.
Bitcoin dominance remains around 60 percent, and it may never fall below 50 percent again. Other chains are not subordinate to Bitcoin at the protocol level, but Bitcoin remains the gravitational center of the crypto economy. Perhaps maximalists only need to acknowledge that other blockchains function as additional layers of King Bitcoin.
Great post as always. Love the comparison to the Seventh-Day Adventists.
I pay no attention to Bitcoin debates personally but I am worried about quantum. That seems like the only thing the maximalists should be discussing right now, they can save the other debates for later.
Interesting that you use ETFs for your BTC. I'm still in the self-custody crowd but now you have me reconsidering.
Thank you for sharing; I'm glad you enjoyed this article. Your mention of quantum mechanics is very interesting... I'm also interested in that. After all, technological advancements often bring new unknowns and challenges, and people sometimes focus too much on current debates while ignoring the factors that could truly change the future.
Regarding Bitcoin ETFs. I believe that self-custody does offer greater control, a principle upheld by many early cryptocurrency holders. However, the advantage of ETFs lies in lowering the entry barrier while resolving some security management and operational complexities, making them particularly suitable for those who want to allocate assets but don't want to bear the risks of private key management.
What are your thoughts?
Spot on. One question- are ETF / custodial BTC more susceptible to govt seizure than “properly” held BTC in hardware wallets? Likely only a tail risk but worth considering
Yes, if you are concerned about that then hold physical BTC, but if you are going to do that, use a multi vendor multisig with a provider like Casa. Single device hardware wallet is fundamentally too risky. As we learned with Coldcard. Ultimately those setups are just too fragile
Theoretically, yes, Bitcoin in ETF or custodial form is more susceptible to government or regulatory influence than self-custodial form because the assets are effectively held by regulated financial institutions that must comply with legal requirements.
The core advantage of self-custodial is its "non-reliance on third parties" …as long as the private key is secure, control of the assets remains in your own hands. However, it also introduces other risks...loss of private keys, improper safekeeping, inheritance issues, and personal security risks. Ultimately, it depends on your choice.
I'd say "yes". ETFs etc more exposed to govt seizure
Good point 👍
Here’s what my agent had to say about your post…seems on brand, right? Short version: Carter’s target is Bitcoin maximalism, not Bitcoin. His core claim is that Bitcoin succeeded as a scarce monetary asset, while the surrounding “BTC replaces fiat / everything else is a scam / self-custody is always superior / halvings mechanically guarantee price” ideology has repeatedly overpromised.
His strongest points:
• Maxis were badly wrong on stock-to-flow, imminent fiat collapse, nation-state adoption, Bitcoin payments winning, and every alt going to zero.
• Stablecoins—not BTC—won actual transactional crypto usage.
• The Coldcard exploit is real and ugly: a weak-seed flaw exposed wallets to brute force, with roughly 1,800 BTC reportedly stolen. That decisively kills “Bitcoin-only self-custody is automatically safest.” TRM Labs
• Bitcoin’s future security budget is a legitimate unresolved problem: current fees are tiny relative to subsidy, and subsidy halves indefinitely. It is not an imminent protocol death sentence, but anyone calling it FUD is being unserious. live fee data
Where he overreaches:
• He groups a lot of distinct people under “maximalist,” then prosecutes the loudest/most ridiculous claims as representative. Fair cultural critique; weaker intellectual taxonomy.
• “Alts still exist” is not proof that most have durable value. The relevant question is value capture, survivability through cycles, and whether users need the token—not merely fee revenue or activity.
• BTC not replacing fiat or becoming retail payments does not impair the more credible thesis: non-sovereign, digitally native monetary collateral / monetary asset. Gold has never been a medium of exchange either.
• He leans hard on 2021-to-now price stagnation. That’s a conveniently chosen window; it cannot establish the long-run asset thesis either way.
• His stated conclusion—ETF custody for almost everyone—is sensible for ordinary investors, but he goes too far in treating self-custody as broadly obsolete. It remains a valuable option; it is just not morally mandatory nor operationally suitable for everyone.
My take on Nic: worth reading, not worth outsourcing your conclusion to. He’s a very good analyst of crypto incentives, institutions, and hypocrisy; he’s also a talented contrarian who writes like a prosecutor and likes landing the blow. In this piece, his facts and diagnosis of maxi culture are mostly strong. His sweep from “maxi claims failed” to “maximalism is effectively dead / BTC has stagnated” is rhetorically juiced.
The mature position is pretty boring—which means it’s probably right: own BTC as a high-volatility monetary asset; do not treat it as a religion, a guaranteed macro hedge, or your entire portfolio. Use self-custody when its sovereignty benefit exceeds its operational risk; otherwise use robust institutional custody/ETFs. And never confuse being right about Bitcoin with being right about every other asset, protocol, or institution.
One small yellow flag: the email says BTC is ~$63k, but the live feed is roughly US$77k today—so it was written/edited against a stale price snapshot. Not fatal, but annoying in a piece lecturing everyone else about epistemics.
your agent is pretty fair.
your agent needs to read the footnotes!
So much rambling; frustration vibes. An asset that is only 17 years old and you are treating it like a failure experience that has been around us for over a century. What a waste of time.
great example of what i'm talking about!
thank you for chiming in and proving my point
I am not a great example of anything. I am a generic Bitcoin investor. Your article (essay?!) simply proves the point that you are not as smart as you think. "blah blah, maximalists are wrong" .... "blah blah blah, mind you, I still invest in Bitcoin" blah blah blah"...you try to cover all angles. How is this related? Who cares about maximalists? Are they the Bitcoin CEOS? Has Bitcoin failed? Is the dollar going strong? So many questions...in the end, it reads as if you are mad at some Bitcoin Maximalists who likely did not treat you well or have made much more money than you. In any case, all the best. The narrative is there and is yours: enjoy it!
I agree, and I appreciate your feedback. In my opinion, we don't need to listen to anyone's ideas or advice; no one has a definitive answer. I believe a healthy investment culture should allow for different voices. Some believe Bitcoin will change the financial system, some think it's just part of asset allocation, and others are skeptical... These different perspectives are themselves part of the process by which the market forms prices and consensus. Ultimately, time will tell which judgments are correct. As you said, the story continues, and we are all involved in writing it
I believe you would reply this to anyone negatively commenting your post. Its overly broad to say the least.
Carter sees the "toxic maximalists" moving goalposts when their price predictions fail, but somehow doesn't notice Christianity's equally impressive gymnastics around unfulfilled divine promises. The Bible is riddled with failed prophecies and broken timelines, but the show goes on through centuries of theological reinterpretation. At least Bitcoin maximalists have only been wrong for a decade, not two thousand years
I am impressed, Nic. You may be interested in an Italian economist's approach to your millenarian theme. He is an old friend of mine. I hope you may open it here: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1043463114546314
Thank you, I will read with interest
Enjoyable. Intellectually fair. Well informed.
I'm an affable, mild BTC Maxi.
1) I see BTC as the first serious attempt to wrest control of money from govts. Similar to how forced religious allegiance (by govt diktat) was widely smashed a few centuries ago. Huge effort, big payoff. If we can do it for money it will transform societies
2) Satirist TechLead proclaims the end of BTC. A very serious note half way through: various factors including "wrench attacks" have dampened pleb advocacy. This will prove to be a major, important and negative trend.
https://youtu.be/VZVTjg85JwA