Controlled opposition?
More people are buying into this theory.
Here’s a breakdown of the situation
First, let me say this isn't about spreading FUD.
I believe in Bitcoin and its principles, and if necessary, I’ll be the last person on Earth to hold it.
However, many respected economists I admire think Bitcoin is purely a creation of a governmental entity, so let's explore this possibility
What makes me consider this theory is the concept of controlled opposition, a widely used and highly effective strategy.
This principle involves managing opposition movements to channel dissent in a predictable and non-threatening way.
This isn't just a theoretical concept, it has been proven in various sectors.
Serious investigations have shown that many environmental advocacy organizations are, in fact, controlled by large oil or transportation companies, the very entities doing the most harm to the environment.
Similarly, in some democratic countries, the illusion of opposition is maintained, where a supposed opposition group seems to challenge the ruling power but is actually entirely controlled by that same power.
So, the question arises: could this be the case with Bitcoin?
There would be multiple objectives:
• Channeling the desire for decentralization
• Testing citizens' reactions
• Increasing financial traceability under the guise of anonymity
• Distracting attention from truly disruptive alternative systems
• Simulating opposition to weaken anti-government movements
Many argue that nothing can be done against a fully decentralized coin. That’s not true.
Take Monero, for example, a completely anonymous blockchain.
As a result, it’s banned from almost all CEXs, making it nearly impossible to obtain except through peer-to-peer transactions.
If Bitcoin were truly anti-establishment, it would also be banned from CEXs like Monero.
But that’s not the case.
Instead, the more famous Bitcoin becomes, the more it's promoted by figures from the traditional system, like Trump or Larry Fink.
Additionally, the hashing algorithm used by Bitcoin (SHA-256) was entirely developed by the U.S. NSA.
Some believe this implies a potential link between the NSA and Bitcoin’s creation.
However, it's important to note that SHA-256 has been an open standard for many years.
Some also argue that Bitcoin relies on a complex combination of cryptography, game theory, economics, and peer-to-peer networks.
The coordination required to create such a system might suggest resources beyond just a small group of individual developers.
It’s also hard to believe that Satoshi could remain anonymous.
Everyone knows the capabilities of U.S. intelligence agencies.
They have the means to find anyone, especially a group, since the more people involved, the higher the chance of making a mistake.
Another point of doubt is the perfect timing with the 2008 financial crisis.
Launching Bitcoin during a time of extreme distrust toward banks and traditional financial systems was ideal.
Financial entities could have used this situation to introduce Bitcoin as a controlled alternative.
Over 3.5 million BTC (worth $224 billion) are sitting dormant in wallets for over 10 years.
What if the first mined or accumulated Bitcoins weren’t lost but actually held by financial entities?
It would be the biggest rug pull in human history if that's true.
One thing is certain, though: BlackRock and other funds began accumulating Bitcoin long before the SEC approved the ETFs.
They did so in a shady, non-public manner, but it’s a fact that they were accumulating.
Now that all this is said, what points lead us to believe the opposite: that Bitcoin wasn’t created by financial or governmental entities?
It’s hard to believe that these entities would have created something as powerful as Bitcoin, which, by its very design, is genuinely anti-system and plays its role very well.
One might also think that if it were a government creation, it would allow for better traceability and direct control.
But that’s not the case, there’s no way to control it.
It’s hard to imagine a government entity building such a system without integrating a backdoor for control.
Moreover, Bitcoin has paved the way for even more decentralized projects like Monero or Zcash.
If Bitcoin were a controlled opposition initiative, it would have failed, as it inspired projects that are even further off the government’s radar.
There is no direct evidence of a government or agency being involved in Bitcoin’s creation.
The only "evidence" is speculation based on Satoshi Nakamoto’s anonymity or very indirect connections (like the use of NSA’s SHA-256).
In the early days, all governments criticized and repressed Bitcoin.
Many even tried to ban its usage, whether through government entities or financial institutions.
It’s only 15 years after its creation that some are starting to show support for Bitcoin.
In the concept of controlled opposition, there’s the word “controlled.”
But Bitcoin is uncontrollable. Why create an uncontrollable opposition?
If a government had designed Bitcoin, they might have found it too risky to lose control once the network became fully autonomous.Here’s my take: With the information available today, saying that Bitcoin is a government creation is pure speculation.
There are elements that might point in that direction, but they’re not enough to draw that conclusion.
I can understand why some economists think this, but it’s because they haven’t studied Bitcoin deeply.
For now, I want to continue believing that Bitcoin stands for noble principles of freedom, decentralization, autonomy, technology, and innovation. If someone thinks otherwise, they should provide concrete proof, otherwise, it’s just speculation.
#BinanceTurns7 #MarketDownturn #IntroToCopytrading #BinanceLaunchpoolHMSTR #FTXSolanaRedemption
