audio version:
Bitcoin is supposed to be a revolution—a proof-of-work (PoW) fortress, where effort secures the network and rewards are earned by those who grind and do the work.
Miners validate blocks and earn block rewards for securing the network through computational effort; developers code to patch vulnerabilities and enhance the software with new capabilities, after which consensus is found.
Nodes make up the network, and educators battle FUD and scammers in the trenches, explaining Bitcoin to anyone who wants (or doesn’t want) to hear it.
But the core of Bitcoin is the proof-of-work mechanism, designed to avoid double-spends, fraud, history rewriting of the blockchain, or hostile takeovers. Along with individuals and companies holding their own keys, it forms a castle, vault, or whichever metaphor one prefers to express the untouchable, non-confiscatable ownership of this voluntary consensus.
Hard money.
That part of Bitcoin’s proof-of-work is not under discussion in this piece — nor should it be. It’s rock solid.
Yet a glaring paradox festers in the economic substratum of Bitcoin: the clandestine accumulators, the armchair philosophers, the middleman-admiring grifters, and short-term opportunists have all been joined by the elite strata of Wall Street : embodying the archetype of passive custodians or would-be hodlders.
It is here that a growing problem is now situated.
It’s a paradox of passive valorization in Bitcoin’s PoW.
In other words: we’re becoming what Karl Marx dreamed up, only with a hard-money suicide pill built in.
That’s a lot to unpack, I know. Let’s dive in.
The ghost in the bitcoin machine
To really get what's going on here, we need to expand our understanding of Bitcoin and look past its familiar properties like scarcity, durability, portability, and censorship resistance.
Bitcoin was built on Proof-of-Work (PoW), which means people have to actually do real, hard work (solving complex computations) to secure the network and earn rewards. But despite this, our culture around Bitcoin’s community and “worker bees” has, like many other assets, started to drift toward a Proof-of-Stake (PoS) mindset — even though PoS as a replacement for the mining reward system is a totally different concept.
Let me explain.
Proof-of-Stake (PoS), as used in systems like Ethereum or Solana, works like this:
The more coins you already have, the more you earn—simply by holding them. You don’t actually have to do any meaningful work; you just need to own a lot, and the system pays you even more for it. It’s a kind of “the rich get richer” setup. While the whole market tanks along with fiat value by decree.
That’s why all fiat and altcoins drop in value compared to bitcoin.
We as bitcoiners know this concept. We therefore prefer PoW.
But there’s this PoS-mentality, and it’s seeping into more than just bitcoin. In this mentality, people invest in assets like housing, gold, ETFs, after which they simply sit back and expect their wealth to grow — often without contributing anything productive.
The system is set up to reward you just for having wealth, not for building or improving anything. Not even the industry they’re part of! (It’s like buying stock in a soccer club and never even going to the matches, never investing in young talent, and promoting tennis racket brands instead on the side).
This is similar to how things often work in the fiat world or traditional economy: those with assets can just “let their money work for them” which usually means others are doing the actual work. That’s the fiat way, that’s the shitcoin way sometimes as well, and it shouldn’t be the bitcoin way - at all. Yet, it is. Big time.
Meanwhile, in much of the Proof-of-Stake coin world (think various altcoins or fiat systems), people actually have to keep hustling—jumping from trend to trend or hype to hype—to chase quick gains. But even then, these rewards are unstable, not “hard money” like Bitcoin; they’re often just the newest fad, or unstable, inflation-prone currencies (what some call “Mickey Mouse money”).
So, to sum up:
There’s PoS as a technical system, where you “secure” the network by holding lots of tokens, not by doing real work. This mostly benefits founders and early insiders—hence the criticism of “shitcoins.”
There’s the PoS mentality, where our economic systems reward people for already having money, not for creativity, effort, or building value.
Both trends risk undermining the original intent of Bitcoin’s Proof-of-Work: to create a fair system where real effort is what counts—not just sitting back and reaping rewards for owning something.
Proof of Stake? It’s essentially a rich-get-richer scheme or casino: they stake their bags, sit back, and collect rewards. Ironically, many in that world end up building more tools and working harder than most Bitcoiners because they know they need to hustle and move quickly to chase their fiat gains in the PoS system. But that’s their issue—those involved in Proof-of-Stake need to come to their own conclusions, and honestly, it’s more amusing than anything else.
By contrast, Bitcoin mining remains true to Proof-of-Work at its core, but the broader market and community—the real ecosystem of builders—has adopted a pure PoS mentality. Not in terms of mining or the reward system itself (as discussed earlier, there’s no debate there), but in attitude, things are shifting. Price appreciation hands the biggest benefits to holders who contribute nothing to the ecosystem; the real winners aren’t necessarily those putting in the effort.
Sweat and sats
The real winners aren't always the ones sweating.
In Bitcoin, the quiet, passive holders stacking sats often end up reaping the largest rewards, usually critiquing from a distance without contributing anything substantial themselves.
They usually watch charts, without lifting a finger. Even if these people once were active in the community, they learned from their “misspent energy” (or what is perceived as such) on how to do the least effort with the most rewards in bitcoin.
Many others simply buy and hold, which, from a human perspective, is understandable.
Starting a pure Bitcoin company from scratch or trying to make a meaningful difference as a small-time contributor reveals just how little funding and reward there is for true value creation. Picture a factory: workers grind out shifts to produce value, while shareholders relax in suites, collecting dividends. In Bitcoin, builders are the workers—developing Lightning implementations, privacy tools like Wasabi, or basic wallets—while holders are the ‘suits’ profiting from their efforts.
And it’s not just individual holders: whales like MicroStrategy, allegedly holding over 500,000 BTC (not 5 million as the voice-over wrongly claimed:) are prime examples. Organizations like MicroStrategy reap massive returns while contributing practically nothing to the ecosystem. Their strategy is simple: borrow fiat, buy Bitcoin, and hold. There’s little dev funding, minimal infrastructure support, and scant community engagement—just accumulation and applause from shareholders. Maybe they’ll release one app or host an event occasionally, but for the most part, they’re dead weight.
It’s not just ironic—it feels like a betrayal, but, unfortunately, it’s also baked into the system.
Will you contribute to Jack Squat and be happy?
What do these giants give back? MicroStrategy's Saylor preaches the Bitcoin gospel, but where's the beef (supreme)? I mean, how can you be a leading main holder of an asset, be that vocal, and do jack **** for the community itself?
If you’re holding major amounts in any asset, wouldn’t you be inclined to keep the usage, community, integration, and development alive? Just like when you’d own major stock in a soccer team would incline you to at least support scouting and training young talent?
No grants to Core devs, no bounties for bug hunters, no push for adoption beyond their balance sheet. Their holdings might signal "institutional confidence," propping prices in fiat but no real adoption or real-life use. They’re a byproduct of bitcoin’s success, not the engine. Even if they really own that much bitcoin.
Therein lies the problem.
The real stars, coders for open-source projects, entrepreneurs bootstrapping tools, evangelists onboarding noobs, survive on scraps or thin air.
Donations? Meager. Grants? Value for value? That’s a sad joke most of the time. It’s a grind that squeezes drops of effort out of the motivated real bitcoiners.
And the sauce is draining fast.
Think of the block size wars: passionate debates, UASF hats, community muscle. People building bitcoin shops, opening information centers, creating art, and building grassroot tools…
Builders risked it all for progress.
Now, corporations and their suits ride that wave without a paddle. (and they’re not the only ones doing this, on a local smaller level, the same happens).
That’s the economy in bitcoin, I’m just pointing it out.
Water and spine
If one can preserve and grow wealth without contributing, it attracts passive people who think, “Pump my bags.” It’s like living remotely, walking 70 miles for water, while 20 villagers sit, saying, “Water’s cool, right?” or “Want a bucket?” When someone fetches water, those 20 buy it first with money one of them (who owns a bank with fake banknotes) loaned them.
Not contributing yet buying Bitcoin cheaply exploits the fiat system and erodes Bitcoin’s core values. It’s subtle but may self-correct long-term. It draws non-Bitcoiners, turning proof of work into proof of stake — not by changing the code, but changing the conduct and community.
This is evident when you see the low risk of pouring fiat or borrowed funds into Bitcoin, as Saylor and others grasp. We can criticize small hoarders who stack satoshis without contributing, but Bitcoin’s system, once circulating, rewards this proof-of-stake mentality. The reward isn’t extra coins but value appreciation from hoarding.
If just holding bitcoin always wins, we’ll all lose in the end.
Acquiring Bitcoin demands proof of work, but afterward, it’s like a proof-of-stake mindset in fiat. You can’t print more Bitcoin or generate it by holding, but this stake-like mentality hinders Bitcoin’s progress. Even proof-of-stake builders outwork most Bitcoiners. Scarcity rewards the least risky, laziest holders.
Bitcoin’s fiat price can rise while its value falters. If hoarding and underpinning loans dominate, we’ve just created another reserve currency with fiat atop Bitcoin. Why build if holding suffices? You can cosplay as a Bitcoiner with orange ties and one-liners, but contributions—proof of work—are often just one app or a simple Lightning address alias.
This setup breeds issues:
Wealth Hoarding: Passive stacks grow, widening wealth gaps.
Centralization Risks: A few entities manipulate markets, flirting with nation-state plans for “fiat with Bitcoin.”
Burning Builders: Innovators lack support. Value-for-value sounds noble, but users hoard sats instead of contributing. Devs toil for little reward.
Stagnation: Starving contributors halts evolution. Upgrades need fuel, or Bitcoin ossifies in a fast-moving fintech landscape.
The ecosystem thrives when builders do, but rewards currently favor the passive parasites.
Bitcoin can go up in price, while losing.
(let that sink in)
Innovation as a luxury
This mismatch is a recipe for disaster. If holding outshines building, why innovate? Systems stiffen, talent flees, and progress stalls. Bitcoin’s diverse small voices get crushed, handing power to rich idlers.
We’ve seen shades of this before: the 2017 hype crash, when buzz faded and grinders rebuilt. But now, with big money locked in, it’s a survival threat.
Imagine a city: architects plan, builders construct, engineers connect. Landlords arrive, collect rent, and profit without sweat.
Bitcoin stands at this split: fiat sidekick or hamster wheel breaker?
Without change, the decentralized revolution dream rots. A bloated PoS mindset squats on PoW’s foundation, warping hard money into something worse.
I argue Bitcoin could swell into the ultimate passive control tool—sneakier than fiat. Why? Fiat’s flaws scream at us daily. This hybrid hides them, requiring deeper insight to uncover. Meanwhile, water haulers pay to toil, then quit for the sidelines.
Ground-sitters watch you shoulder four buckets, uncaring if you break. They drink, exploit the next, and soapbox about loans for buckets—earning cheers.
We become a PoS community-style. Money’s trust is at the core. How much can last with everyone waiting for magic buckets? Idleness kills trust, just like fiat’s forced reboots every 60–80 years. Skip that trap, math money or bust.
When we keep pushing this Marxist angle, soon there will be uniforms demanding water hauls as miners, Wall Street, and all the bad sides of fiat return to the surface again.
True ethos keepers grind for scraps, risk losses, and catch flak. Slackers? Their stacks grow; they yell “Sell chairs for buckets!” and get applause.
Shaking the Script
Flip it: champion the drivers. Quick wins:
Decentralized Grants: Pool sats and fees for open-source projects. Scale the Bitcoin Dev Fund.
Builder Bounties: Reward fixes and upgrades to attract talent.
Amplify the doers: Highlight Lightning and privacy tools—turn cheers into real backing, support grassroots events.
Conclusion
The proof-of-stake mentality could further hijack Bitcoin’s proof-of-work foundation, twisting its hard money principles into something perverse—effortlessly. Just buy, hold, and toss out one-liners from your unsold chair. Bitcoin’s paradox is that its robust system attracts passive opportunists who thrive by doing nothing. Its hard money traits reward fiat-minded laziness, turning dedicated Bitcoiners into enablers when their efforts go unrewarded.
You can toil to fetch water, but idle spectators will drink it and mock you. Without a shift in our community, ecosystem, and ethos, we’ll prioritize the lazy over builders—waiting for others to mine, run nodes, fund devs, or counter FUD. We’d become the idle Marxists of a coin killed by sloth.
I envision a better path. Be active, industrious, or fade away. Get organized, informed, and relentless.
Don’t sell your chairs for Bitcoin — sell the shares of those preaching idleness.
Or become just the next Solana, Cardano, or Pepe token, because your proof-of-work will be squashed by fiat-fueled laziness.
As Bitcoiners, champion innovators over the idle.
Bitcoiners can sweat to make us escape the fiat chains, while parasitic stackers profit, risking a hard money future drowned in apathy.
by AVB_21
donate if you like my work
by @AVB_21 donate if you like my work