I understand the concern about a power vacuum—when a centralized authority collapses or loses control, something must inevitably take its place. But I still argue that the best solution lies in a decentralized model, one where the individual, not a new elite, is empowered.

The power vacuum that follows the fall of fiat is real, but it doesn’t have to be filled by a new, organized counter-elite. Rather, Bitcoin allows for a distributed network of entrepreneurs, innovators, and market participants to fill that gap organically. Yes, free markets have winners and losers, but the strength of Bitcoin is that it doesn’t centralize the winners into a new oligarchy. It’s anti-fragile and resists co-option by elites due to its open, transparent, and trustless nature.

You mentioned how economies depend on entrepreneurs responding to signals. That’s true, but Bitcoin’s decentralization means those signals aren’t coming from a central planner or a handful of elites, but from the network’s participants. The system self-corrects and evolves, with power and influence diffused across many, rather than concentrated in a few.

The parallel economy we’re building isn’t meant to peacefully coexist with fiat forever. It’s a hedge and a challenge to it. Eventually, Bitcoin’s robustness should outcompete fiat not through centralized control but by being the more efficient and fair system. The “direction” of the economy, then, becomes a collective one, steered by the millions of individuals who opt into Bitcoin rather than one group seizing power.

Bitcoin is about resisting the need for an elite to steer the ship. We avoid letting the same parasites back in by making sure that no one has the concentrated power to steer the economy unilaterally—only the collective choices of the participants do. That’s how we ensure the old system doesn't regain control: by creating one that doesn't allow control by anyone.


 

 >”But I still argue that the best solution lies in a decentralized model, one where the individual, not a new elite, is empowered.”

I’m not arguing against that at all.

Ancaps don’t dispute natural hierarchies, Auth-anything’s certainly don’t either - only AnComs are stupid enough to believe in leaderless utopias. Because we see these form regardless of superstructure; it’s human nature to have leaders. 

I too would like that superstructure to be decentralised. I too would like the new elite to be more figureheads than actually be empowered.

None of that is counter to my argument, it’s just a shallow understanding on your part of how humans organise societies.

How powerful the new elite class turns out to be is within our power to control, because Bitcoiners will own the means of production at the outset of the system. We can be the ones to set the rules in motion.

Turning a blind eye and pretending we’re going to turn into an entirely meritorious homogeneous blob of humans is to ignore all of history and every system which has ever been. It’s just not how things work in reality so rather than leave everything to random chance I’d say it’s better to be the ones with the guiding hand over the levers of control than leave it to chance.