Growing up, I was a diehard skater who embraced the “skate and destroy” mentality. My friends and I spent our days hopping fences, running from security guards, and generally wreaking havoc as part of the skating lifestyle.

Fast forward to present day. I’m a year shy of 30, and these days it’s less ”skate and destroy” and more “relax and enjoy.” Having traded ruckus for relaxation, sometimes I wonder if I’ve gone soft.

I’m reminded of a famous Pink Floyd lyric:

“Did you exchange a walk on part in the war, for a lead role in a cage?”

The answer probably depends on who you ask.

I think the Bitcoin ecosystem is in an analogous (albeit more complex and consequential) process of identity development. Since its inception, Bitcoin has fought an ideological war against the prevailing monetary paradigm. And as of today, Bitcoin is winning. It’s becoming mainstream. And as adoption increases and legacy institutions arrive, there are those who worry that the culture is being diluted and the original ethos is being lost.

The mainstreaming of Bitcoin raises questions like: Is it still a bastion for cypherpunks and digital freedom fighters? Or will it become another vanilla asset in your dad’s 401k and a topic for Econ101? Can it be both?

These questions can’t be answered by a singular individual; the answers will be borne from a confluence of social, political, cultural, and philosophical factors. As such, it is instructive to watch what happens at this intersection of action and ideology, where we can see these questions being answered in real time.

We got a small glimpse into this process on Lex Fridman’s recent podcast with Anothony Pompliano. Pomp has become a de facto spokesperson for Bitcoin, as someone who can expertly articulate its value as an asset class, a protocol, and a cultural phenomenon. Lex, on the other hand, represents an academic attempting to wade into the space for the first time. As someone with a deep knowledge of computer science, an open mind, and an interest in the future of technology, Lex is both the ideal orangepill candidate and the perfect target for the ire of the Bitcoin community.

One exchange in particular caused a stir on Twitter: Lex asked whether the Bitcoin community could be nicer when they are presented with challenges to some of Bitcoin’s core values. Lex argued that, given his technical background, he could offer value to the community through rigorous, respectful discussion. Pomp’s response was that when you get memed to death for posing certain questions or ideas (which is what happened to Lex), that’s a feature, not a bug. According to Pomp, Bitcoin is an insurgency that is slowly breaking down the establishment through a war of ideas. Casualties like Lex are a natural consequence of this fact.

There was much more to this exchange, but I want to focus on the community’s response. Digging into the comment section, I found a contingent of critics who branded Lex as a credentialist and did not mince words about where he could shove his PhD. There were others who encouraged Lex’s curiosity and welcomed his perspective. Then there were others who disliked both of them on the grounds that neither represent the “true” values of the Bitcoin community.

I think this points to a cultural bifurcation that is becoming more pronounced as Bitcoin goes mainstream. As those from legacy institutions make their way into the space, there is an attempt to engage with Bitcoin using more traditional, established frameworks. Understandably, this seems antithetical to those who have been in space for a long time; Bitcoin was created as a protest against the system, and now the system is trying to make Bitcoin fit neatly within its models.

There is a piece titled “Why the Yuppie Elite Dismiss Bitcoin” (credit: Croesus) which seems relevant at this moment. While the majority of the demographic described in this piece are still ideological holdouts, quite a few of those “yuppie elites” are finding their way into Bitcoin, and it’s clear they are a different breed of investor. They don’t enter the space possessing what used to be a requisite ideology for Bitcoiners: a distrust of the system, freedom-maximalism, etc.

Instead, the new investor class is more likely to value Bitcoin similar to an early-stage VC play, with little regard for the sociopolitical implications of the protocol.

So what will Bitcoin (the asset, the protocol, the community) become as it  passes through this inflection point?

I believe that just as you have to expect some volatility as an asset goes from $0 to $1T in value over the course of a decade, you also have to expect that the asset will grow to encompass a wide swath of society in that same time. This means that there will be all manner of frameworks applied to Bitcoin, from the politically radical, to the academically mundane. Some frameworks will persist, others will be discarded, and all will be updated as part of Bitcoin’s continued evolution.

If Pomp’s description of Bitcoin as an insurgency is accurate, then you should measure success by the extent to which it has carved out a space within the monetary regime and mainstream consciousness. By that measure, Bitcoin is winning. The price of adoption, however, is more adoption. The big banks are here, the institutions are here, and yes, even a dude with a PhD is here. 

There are plenty of people who don’t see a problem with this; they got into the game to front-run the Wall Street elite, and now they’re chuckling as they get their bags pumped courtesy of institutional FOMO. Then there are those who worry that the culture will get eroded by the new wave of adoption. I believe this is a valid concern; as Pomp said, the irreverent, vicious (and yes, sometimes toxic) Bitcoin culture has served as a staunch immunity against outside attacks, and as the ultimate guerilla marketing strategy.

If you lose that, what does Bitcoin become?

I see ample evidence that despite increased adoption, the original ethos of the Bitcoin community isn’t going away. In the midst of accelerating adoption, we are seeing the voices of the original Bitcoin community amplified, not diminished. The quality of information and historical knowledge you can access via Twitter, podcasts, and newsletters is truly impressive, and there is no shortage of resources for those who seek them (though you may get destroyed on Twitter in the process).

Equally encouraging are characters like Jack Mallers, who in my mind represents a paragon of Bitcoin’s ideology put into practice. He’s building something with Strike that is fundamentally changing the way we move money around the world, and he’s doing it while wearing a hoody, swigging rosé, and giving the middle finger to anyone who wears a suit (sorry, Lex). If there’s any evidence that the unapologetic, old-school mentality can persist in present-day applications, Jack is it. 

That being said, no one can be sure what will happen to Bitcoin’s culture as the hardcore maximalists who spawned the movement become an ever-smaller percentage of the total userbase.

It seems likely that as the digital asset space grows, more investors will see Bitcoin as just another asset (albeit a high performing one) in their portfolio. Some might argue that this represents a dilution of the culture. I would argue it is evidence of Bitcoin’s success in its insurgency, and that the culture will persist regardless of this fact.

Whatever your stance on what Bitcoin “should” become, we are all left with the same option: take the set of actions that moves Bitcoin in the direction you believe it should go. Just as there is no Bitcoin support line you can call if you lose your coins, there is no Bitcoin PR team to say what is and isn’t a good look for the community. There’s no CEO to define and enforce cultural norms. There is just the community and the total set of its actions, beliefs, and values.

What Bitcoin is, and what it will ultimately become, is an emergent property of the collective that embraces it. And I think this is a beautiful thing; the open monetary system that can be used by anyone, will end up reflecting a little bit of everyone who takes part in it.