I have frequently discussed the “cultural narratives” enacted by various cryptocurrency communities, an referred to them as an “unhappy family”, related by technical and social inheritances. These characteristics are on view nearly every day in the form of controversy, competition, and emotional outbursts.
Besides the usual arrests, inscrutable announcements about funding, and secret meetings on private islands, this week we witnessed a sad episode in the Dogecoin community, as founder Jackson Palmer washed his hands not only of Dogecoin (which he walked away from last year), but from cryptocurrency altogether.
Basically, he is sick and tired of the “toxic” culture of cryptocurrency communities, to the point where he’s not interested any more. (I have called this malady “chronically inflamed reddits”, an endemic and debilitating internet disease.)
He is not the only one who has this gripe, and I certainly sympathize. I know of other people who have been driven away from cryptocurrency by the unpleasant “community”. I follow cryptocurrency developments, but I can’t abide reddit for more than a few seconds myself.
In other words, I certainly “get it”.
However, this “you won’t have Palmer to kick around any more” vibe struck me as childish and unhelpful. When we desparately need good examples, this wasn’t one.
Dogeoin was already comatose, this did nothing to make things better.
Meanwhile, the patriarch of the cryptocurrency family, Bitcoin, is having its own crazy year. Once upon a time there was the Bitcoin Foundation, which hosted the source code and presented a public face of the community. This setup was patterned after open source software projects, such as Linux and the World Wide Web (and Kerberos and so on).
The Bitcoin community has now segmented into a half dozen or more fragments, with divergent and sometimes conflicting goals. The BF was unable to hold everyone together, and the combination of exchange rates (strong USD against BTC) and dissention on the (mysterious and opaque) board has resulted in roiling leadership and two dramatic changes in direction in six months.
While the (known) founder of Doegecoin walked away from the Dogecoin Foundation, the Bitcoin Foundation faces a purge of the (pseudonymous) Satoshi Nakamoto as well as other (known) founders. Perhaps this is a move toward “transparency” (or at least basic honesty), but it also reflects a distinct regime change.
The more important development is that a new player entered the game: MIT Media announced a new cryptocurrency initiative, followed shortly by the announcement that the Bitcoin source code development will be hosted at MIT.
The Bitcoin Foundation itself is now reduced to a lobbying group (one of several), though it is not clear exactly who is calling the tune. It wouldn’t be surprising to see the BF fade away pretty rapidly.
With Bitcoin now supported by MIT, BTC enters a new phase.
This is not a terrible development at all. MIT is good at open software and standards, and isn’t likely to do anything radically stupid. I’m happy to have BTC not run out of Silicon Valley (see previous comment about “radically stupid things”). And frankly, the mere shadow of MIT Media Lab lends more public credibility to BTC than the BF or Marc Andreesson or Richard Branson ever did or could.
MIT’s role does pose some challenges for the Bitcoin communities and cultural narratives. Whatever it may or may not be, MIT is scarcely a “decentralized” organization. MIT is not in any way an upstart, it is deeply connected with all the powers that be. Will it be able to hold together enough of the community to actually lead developments?
MIT is extremely well equipped with talent of all types, including real economists. There is a reasonable possibility that some grown ups may now get involved with Bitcoin. Good!
My biggest “wish” at this point is for the MIT initiative to take a broader view than just Bitcoin. Cryptocurrency is so much more interesting than Bitcoin.
Cryptocurrency Thursday
Robert McGrath's Blog 