BITCOIN VS SHITCOINS

Shitcoins were born out of this unease. From the moment Bitcoin ceased to be seen as a game, it began to be avoided. Too slow. Too austere. Too demanding. Too unspectacular. So something else was invented. And then something else again. Each new token wasn't a response to a real technical problem, but an attempt to make the experience more comfortable, more exciting, more marketable. The shitcoin market isn't a market of innovation. It's a market of psychological compensation.

Bitcoin doesn't flatter the ego. Shitcoins do. They allow you to feel smarter than the masses, faster than the market, bolder than others. They create an illusion of control where Bitcoin imposes radical humility. In Bitcoin, no one owes you anything. No developer will come to fix your mistake. No magical hard fork will repair a bad decision. In shitcoins, on the contrary, everything is designed to maintain the illusion that a group, a team, a leader, or a roadmap can always catch up with reality.

This difference explains why Bitcoin is slowly being adopted by increasingly quiet individuals, while shitcoins attract a noisy, overexcited crowd, always looking for the next big story. Bitcoin doesn't reward commotion. Shitcoins thrive on it. Every tweet, every announcement, every partnership is fuel. Silence is a danger to them. Bitcoin, on the other hand, flourishes in indifference.

It's important to understand that Bitcoin isn't trying to replace anything in a dramatic way. It's not intended to "kill" banks, overthrow governments, or create a new technological elite. It simply offers an incorruptible record of truth. This is precisely why it's so difficult to accept. It leaves no room for interpretation. The rules are known, public, and immutable without requiring widespread consensus. There's no marketing opportunity in the face of this.

Shitcoins, on the other hand, are malleable. They can change their narrative, their direction, their promises. They can pivot, rename themselves, rebrand. They adapt to trends, fears, and market opportunities. They function more like narrative startups than monetary systems. Their value is not based on structural truth, but on temporary collective acceptance. As long as the narrative holds, the price holds. When the narrative collapses, nothing remains.

Bitcoin doesn't depend on membership. It works even if no one talks about it. Even if no one believes in it. Even if no one likes it. That's what makes it so unique. It doesn't seek social validation. It doesn't seek emotional adoption. It doesn't need to be popular to be effective. Shitcoins, on the other hand, die as soon as attention shifts.

This opposition reveals something deeper than a simple technological question. It reveals an anthropological divide. Bitcoin attracts individuals capable of living with uncertainty without hiding it. Individuals capable of accepting an uncomfortable truth without trying to circumvent it. Shitcoins attract those who need a constant narrative to cope with waiting, volatility, and the slowness of reality.

In Bitcoin, time is central. Long-term time. Time that isn't negotiable. Time that demands patience and humility. In shitcoins, time is compressed, accelerated, manipulated. Everything is cyclical: hype, pump, dump. The horizon is never stable. It constantly shifts to avoid confronting the void.

It's tempting to believe that shitcoins are a necessary step, an obligatory passage before Bitcoin. This is sometimes true, but not always. Many people get lost in them permanently. Not through lack of intelligence, but because shitcoins offer exactly what Bitcoin denies: a space where the ego can flourish without being challenged. Where one can attribute failures to the market, to whales, to manipulation, rather than to one's own decisions.

Bitcoin doesn't allow for this kind of escape. It acts like a mirror. It reflects the individual back to their choices, their discipline, their ability to accept the consequences. That's why it's so often rejected, even by those who claim to understand it. Understanding Bitcoin intellectually is easy. Accepting it existentially is another matter entirely.

Shitcoins promise a community. Bitcoin imposes solitude. Not social solitude, but decision-making solitude. No one can buy, sell, secure, or hold Bitcoin for you without exposing you to risk. This total responsibility is unbearable for many. Shitcoins offer the opposite illusion: a team, a leader, a shared vision. Someone to blame if everything collapses.

This dynamic also explains why Bitcoin is often treated as a mere speculative asset, even by self-proclaimed maximalists. Transforming Bitcoin into a financial product is a way to tame it, to make it compatible with old habits. Shitcoins don't have this problem. They were born as products. Their purpose is to be traded, arbitraged, and liquidated. Bitcoin wasn't born for that. It's a secondary consequence, not its essence.

As time goes on, this difference becomes increasingly apparent. Cycles come and go, projects disappear, promises evaporate. Bitcoin, however, perseveres. It doesn't evolve quickly. It doesn't evolve to please. It evolves when necessary, and only when an extremely broad consensus emerges. This slowness is perceived as a weakness by those who confuse movement with progress.

In reality, Bitcoin is probably one of the most conservative systems ever conceived. And it is precisely this conservatism that makes it revolutionary. It doesn't seek to improve humanity. It doesn't seek to correct its flaws. It simply creates a framework in which lies are costly, mistakes are permanent, and discipline is rewarded in the long run.

Shitcoins, on the other hand, try to adapt the system to human weaknesses. They want to reduce friction, simplify responsibility, and smooth out the consequences. They want to make the world more comfortable without changing its foundations. Bitcoin does the opposite. It changes the foundations and lets discomfort take its course.

It's important to understand that this opposition isn't moral. It's not about saying that shitcoin users are stupid or immoral. It's about recognizing that Bitcoin and shitcoins don't fulfill the same psychological needs. One appeals to those who accept constraint as a tool for truth. The other appeals to those still seeking an escape.

Over time, many stop talking. Not out of technical fatigue, but existential weariness. Explaining Bitcoin to someone who only wants another story is pointless. Arguing against a promise is futile. Bitcoin isn't sold. It's discovered, often too late, often after a series of costly mistakes elsewhere.

This is perhaps the clearest distinction between Bitcoin and shitcoins. Bitcoin doesn't need to convince anyone. Shitcoins only exist because of the conviction of others. Bitcoin will survive indifference. Shitcoins die in silence.

As regulation progresses, administrative frameworks become more rigid, and narratives lose their impact, this difference will become even more apparent. Projects built on promise will disappear or conform until they lose all substance. Bitcoin, however, will continue to produce blocks, indifferent to laws, opinions, and media cycles.

Bitcoin versus shitcoins is therefore not a market battle. It's a revealer. A revealer of maturity. Of one's relationship to time. Of the ability to live without a safety net. Those who survive will not necessarily be the richest, nor the most visible. They will be those who have accepted that Bitcoin is not there to reassure them, but to challenge them. And that is precisely why it cannot be replaced.