Why I believe in Bitcoin

I believe Bitcoin has the power to change the world for the better.

That belief is not based on its price. I do not see Bitcoin primarily as an investment, and I am not interested in accumulating more euros simply for the sake of having more euros. The more important question is: what kind of money am I saving my work and time in?

Money is stored human effort. When its value is continually diluted, the consequences reach far beyond a number in a bank account. It changes incentives. It rewards proximity to newly created money, encourages short-term thinking, and makes responsible saving increasingly difficult.

Bitcoin proposes something radically different: money whose supply cannot be changed because changing it would be politically convenient.

Its rules are public. Its issuance is predictable. No central authority can create more bitcoin to finance a promise, rescue an institution, or postpone a difficult decision. That does not make Bitcoin perfect, but it gives it a quality our existing monetary systems lack: credible scarcity.

This matters because the rules of money shape everything built on top of them.

A Bitcoin-based financial system would not make banks, credit, or financial crises disappear. People would still lend, borrow, take risks, and make mistakes. Institutions would still be necessary. Law would still matter. The protocol can verify control of funds and enforce scarcity, but it cannot answer every question involving fraud, contracts, identity, or human conflict.

Bitcoin does not eliminate trust. It reduces the amount of trust required at the foundation.

That distinction is important. Bitcoin can provide a monetary anchor while other layers handle credit, payments, legal claims, and ordinary commerce. The real challenge is understanding how those layers should connect without quietly recreating the same system Bitcoin was meant to improve.

The hardest test will not be technical. It will be political.

A society may appreciate hard money while conditions are comfortable. During a severe crisis, however, governments and voters will face pressure to abandon its constraints. Creating money can appear easier than accepting defaults, falling prices, or institutional failure. Bitcoin's technology may continue working perfectly while the institutions surrounding it choose a different path.

This is why I do not regard Bitcoin's success as inevitable. Predictable scarcity is only the beginning. The larger question is whether people will accept the discipline that comes with it, especially when abandoning that discipline would offer immediate relief.

I am still learning what a transition toward Bitcoin could realistically look like. I want to understand what the protocol can guarantee, what existing law requires, and which institutions can honestly bridge the two worlds. I expect parts of my thinking to change as I find better evidence and stronger arguments.

But my central belief remains:

Better money can create better incentives. Better incentives can produce more honest institutions, longer time horizons, and greater individual freedom.

Bitcoin gives us the opportunity to test that belief. I think the opportunity is too important to ignore.