A Response to My Editor

This is a blurb from an email response I wrote to my editor regarding my upcoming book, “The Bitcoin Thesis.” He was not overly enthused with my more “metaphysical” claims around Bitcoin and fiat, particularly how those forms of money affect us as individuals and us as a society. This is part of what I wrote:

“I do want to write an example to hopefully lend some credence to my metaphysical writings and positions that Bitcoin goes beyond economics. Let’s say there are two people, Person A and Person B. There are also two forms of money, Money A and Money B. Money A will lose 50% of its value by the end of 2026. Money B will gain 50% in value by the end of 2026. We give Money A to Person A and Money B to Person B. Which person would feel more hopeful about their future? More optimistic? More enthused by tomorrow? Happier, passionate, more excited? More secure? I believe all logic points to Person B as the answer. Sure, we could get into the infinite amount of ways Person A could be different from Person B, like their childhood, where they were raised, what job they have, and so on, but the book and the points made in it relate to money and how it affects us, not everyday things and events that happen throughout our lifetime. The position I take is that the money we use does affect us on an emotional and spiritual level. Life is better when the money you own appreciates in value, again, particularly when compared to a life where the money you own depreciates in value. But what are the deeper effects of those realities, both individually and societally? What would happen to society if we all used and coordinated ourselves with something that saw a negative return in value? What would be society’s return in value? I file all of those grievances with fiat, “hook-up culture and declining birth rates to degraded art & architecture to the proliferation of chemicals, plastics, processed foods, etc.,” because I believe they are subconsciously related to the reality where our measure of value is heading in the negative direction, constantly, and by design. I’d be happy to debate any economist, or anybody, on this. I stand by this claim and hope it does/will come across well in the book.”

My chief editor isn’t a Bitcoiner, but I’m glad he isn’t. How do my messages come across to someone who doesn’t “get it?” That’s a big question, because my hope is that a reader who doesn’t get it finishes the book saying “I get it.” There’s a lot that goes into that, including many things that are out of my control, but I believe it is my duty to put my best effort forward in providing that process-of-realization to my readers. That’s why it’s been helpful to have an outsiders’ perspective on my initial manuscript.

That reminds me… I haven’t informed the people on this newsletter… I have turned in my manuscript to my publisher. But the duty of love is not finished :)