While Bitcoin was intended to enable people to opt out of state-centralized money systems, the blockchain industry has since lost its way.

Today, we see the threat of government overreach along with blockchain solutions that prioritize scalability and performance over decentralization.

While Bitcoin was intended to enable people to opt out of state-centralized money systems, the blockchain industry has since lost its way. Today, we see the threat of government overreach along with blockchain solutions that prioritize scalability and performance over decentralization.

The rise of networks like Ethereum and Solana has certainly been captivating, but these blockchains comprise core values in exchange for usability and institutions’ adoption. To achieve the mission that Satoshi started, there is a dire need to return to Bitcoin’s original ethos of money, which is credibly neutral, immutable money that cannot be manipulated.

Immutability is king

With a fixed supply of 21 million coins and regular halving events, Bitcoin exudes monetary certainty. No central authority or discovery can change Bitcoin’s supply. This positions Bitcoin as an incredibly predictable store of value against the backdrop of money printing and rampant inflation, setting it apart from other forms of currency. Additionally, Bitcoin’s rules are extremely difficult to change, which builds long-term trust in the network.

Flexibility and performance, but at what cost?

Key layer-1 (L1) players such as Ethereum and Solana offer unmatched flexibility and performance, but with an alarming trade-off. Ethereum’s governance-led updates that affect gas fees and staking rewards don't always please those with ETH holdings. Moreover, Solana prioritizes speed and performance above all else, which leaves it vulnerable to increased levels of centralization. As a result of trade-offs, L1 networks like Ethereum and Solana are severely weakened in the face of censorship and manipulation, whether from governments, regulators, or powerful corporate interests.

As of March 2024, Coinbase controlled 3.84 million ETH staked on 120,000 validators, representing 11.42% of the total staked Ether, and is the largest solo Ethereum node operator. This concentration poses centralization issues, as a handful of large players, like Coinbase, could threaten Ethereum’s decentralization and trigger regulatory risks. Additionally, it takes control away from the individual and places it back into the hands of a large, centralized corporation — the complete opposite of the original vision for cryptocurrency.

The role of venture capital in crypto

The crypto industry began as a rebellion against Big Tech and the gatekeeping of Silicon Valley, where only accredited investors could back startups and benefit from early-stage gains. Crypto flipped that paradigm on its head. For the first time, ordinary people, not VCs or insiders, could participate in creating new technologies from Day One. But now that the industry has had some time to mature, venture capital has reasserted itself, dispensing crypto in ways that appeal to the very systems it was trying to disrupt.

Recent: Metaplanet’s Bitcoin ‘premium’ nears $600K per BTC

While venture capital hastens innovation, it also centralizes control through token distributions, board seats and control over product roadmaps. Solana is among the leading blockchains to have received lots of investment from firms such as a16z and Polychain Capital. This investment fuelled rapid growth but also created a centralization of tokens and decision-making powers among a handful of investors.

The most prominent crypto projects, like Ethereum and Solana — whether cynical of the old system or not — are ultimately built to serve institutions in their current state. Founding teams lock up large pre-mines, give favorably tilted terms to early investors, and structure incentives toward eventual exits rather than long-term decentralization. These behaviors reintroduce many similar power dynamics that Bitcoin sought to eliminate.

Decentralization is not optional

Decentralization is the essence of censorship resistance as well as individual economic liberty. Bitcoin’s resistance to alteration protects it from being hijacked by powerful interests. Networks that see decentralization as a trade-off risk falling under the control of a new gatekeeper class. To preserve the promise of crypto, decentralization must remain the highest priority.

The strength of Bitcoin is in its neutrality and immutability, not its programmability or speed.

The crypto ecosystem needs to get back to these values to avoid repeating the mistakes of the traditional financial system. Rather than trends or institutional approval, the industry must recommit to developing instruments for absolute financial independence. Returning to Bitcoin’s original vision is the only way to separate currency from the state and reclaim control over money through a trustless, censorship-resistant system.

Opinion by: Dr. K, co-founder of Quai Network.