TAO VS BITCOIN: THE ILLUSION OF A REPLACEMENT
Share
There's a recurring obsession in the world of cryptocurrencies: the search for the new Bitcoin. It's as if the human mind refuses to accept the idea that a definitive invention could exist. As if in an era obsessed with constant progress and successive revolutions, it's absolutely necessary for each innovation to be dethroned by another, faster, more complex, more modern one. Bitcoin, for many, can only be a step. The story doesn't end there. And today, it's TAO that takes on this role of challenger. The Bitcoin of artificial intelligence, as its defenders repeat.
The expression is striking, it seduces, it intrigues. It is designed to seduce a world that believes in technological narratives as much as in numbers. TAO, a distributed network where digital neurons train and reward each other with tokens, is presented as a radical promise. Some claim it could do for cognition what Bitcoin did for money. But this comparison is not only misleading, it is dangerous. Because it blurs the perception of what Bitcoin really is and reduces its power to a mere step in an innovation competition. Bitcoin is not just another technology; it is a foundation. TAO, on the other hand, is an experiment. This is the starting point to keep in mind before deconstructing, one by one, the arguments of those who believe in the myth of a replacement.
TAO proponents like to point out that their protocol is decentralized. Every participant can contribute, every neuron is free, the rules are written into the code. At first glance, this looks like Bitcoin. But there's a difference in kind, not just in degree. Bitcoin was born from a disappearing act. Satoshi Nakamoto designed a protocol, launched it, and then disappeared. No one holds special rights over the network; no one can rewrite the rules to suit themselves. Bitcoin's governance is extremely radical; there isn't any. It's pure consensus, majority rule applied without a center of power. TAO, on the other hand, is still a project under guardianship. Its foundation holds a significant portion of the tokens, its code is complex, and its evolution depends on an identified group, backed by powerful capital and established players in finance and crypto. This doesn't detract from the project's value, but it is enough to show that it is not of the same nature as Bitcoin. Where Bitcoin has proven its resilience by surviving the absence of its creator, TAO still depends on a few.
Another argument repeated like a mantra: TAO, like Bitcoin, is limited to twenty-one million units. The number wasn't chosen at random; it's a nod, an attempt to place itself in the symbolic continuity of the king. And every time this number is mentioned, it reactivates the power of digital scarcity in the collective imagination. But this imitation doesn't make TAO strong; on the contrary, it highlights its weakness. Because scarcity isn't a magic formula that can simply be copied. In Bitcoin, it's not an arbitrary decision. It's rooted in the protocol, guaranteed by absolute decentralization, protected by thousands of nodes that refuse any alteration. It has become a mathematical truth, almost a natural law. In TAO, the choice of twenty-one million is a design decision. A contract clause that could be modified by future governance. There's no guarantee that one day, if needs evolve, this number won't be challenged. It's not a truth; it's a choice. And a choice remains vulnerable to human arbitrariness.
Bitcoin is a disruption. TAO is an experiment. The distinction may seem subtle, but it is crucial. Bitcoin has shaken up the very basis of value. Before it, money depended on institutions, central banks, governments. It could be issued, controlled, manipulated. With Bitcoin, money has become a neutral, masterless, incorruptible protocol. This is not just a technological innovation, it is an anthropological revolution. Humanity finally possesses a monetary tool that depends on no one. TAO, on the other hand, explores a fascinating avenue: distributing and coordinating cognitive power. It is a brilliant idea, perhaps even necessary in a world where AI is centralizing in the hands of a few giants. But it is not a definitive disruption; it is an attempt. A search. TAO could succeed or fail; it could be supplanted by another, more efficient, faster, better-designed protocol. Its role is experimental; it is not intended to become a timeless truth. Bitcoin is not a laboratory; Bitcoin is a rock. TAO, in essence, is a laboratory. To confuse it with Bitcoin is to confuse eternity with fashion.
A classic criticism of Bitcoin is its lack of utility in the functional sense. It only serves to transfer and store value. It doesn't train artificial intelligence, it doesn't build complex contracts, it doesn't run applications. TAO's defenders take the opportunity to point out that their network is useful. But this argument backfires. Because it's precisely this lack of utility that makes Bitcoin so strong. Its function is minimal, its design is deliberately limited. It doesn't seek to please or adapt. It does only one thing: guarantee an incorruptible currency. And that's enough to turn the world upside down. TAO, on the other hand, must constantly adapt. Its utility lies in its ability to serve AI, but this utility can evolve. Today it's training models, tomorrow it will be something else. This plasticity is a short-term strength, but a long-term weakness. Every useful technology eventually becomes obsolete. Bitcoin, on the other hand, will never be surpassed, because it does not offer a technology but a truth.
Why, despite everything, do so many voices continue to present TAO as a potential replacement for Bitcoin? Because our era is hungry for stories. Bitcoin was the great monetary narrative of the 21st century. It transformed a generation, gave birth to a mythology, a community, a tribe. Today, attention is turning to artificial intelligence. It worries, it fascinates, it promises to redefine society. TAO arrives at the right time to embody this new narrative. Its 21 million units, its mysterious pseudonym, its universal promise—everything is designed to evoke a sense of déjà vu. But this narrative is cosmetic. The comparison with Bitcoin is merely a marketing tool. TAO does not have the same symbolic weight. It is not based on the same rupture. It cannot embody the same radical refusal. Bitcoin was not designed to seduce, it was designed to exist. TAO, however, seeks to seduce. And this difference changes everything.
Bitcoin didn't seek to please. It wasn't created to attract investors or respond to a trend. It was born out of a radical desire to remove the monopoly on money from governments and banks. Its strength lies in its immutability, in its ability to say no. TAO, on the contrary, is a project that says yes. Yes to experimentation, yes to flexibility, yes to adaptation. This is what makes it a fascinating but also fragile system. Where Bitcoin is a stone placed in the middle of a torrent, TAO is the water that flows around it. Fluid, changing, elusive. But water doesn't replace the stone; it goes around it, adapts to it; it cannot abolish it.
Bitcoin is a political act. TAO is a technical project. Bitcoin aims to abolish monetary intermediaries; it challenges the heart of the global financial system. It is a direct confrontation with central banks, with debt, with monetary control. TAO aims to redistribute cognitive power. It is a technical project, a response to the centralization of AI. Both are exciting, both can coexist, but to confuse them is to miss the point. Humanity's monetary sovereignty will never rely on a neural network. It relies on an incorruptible currency. And that currency is Bitcoin.
TAO is a brilliant experiment. It deserves to be explored, studied, and tested. It can transform the way AI is distributed. But it will never replace Bitcoin. Because Bitcoin is not a technology, it is a truth. Because Bitcoin is not a laboratory, it is a foundation. Because Bitcoin is not a promise, it is a reality. TAO can seduce, Bitcoin prevails. TAO can evolve, Bitcoin remains. TAO can die, Bitcoin cannot. And that is why in a hundred years we will still be talking about Bitcoin.
👉 ALSO READ: