I was always sold that Bitcoin is 100% neutral, and for a long time, I bought it. The code does not discriminate, does not ask who you are, where you come from, or how much you have in the bank. Pure mathematics replacing bankers and politicians. Sounds perfect, right? But lately, I doubt it more than ever, and I think it's good to open the debate without dogmas.

Today's society has an almost religious faith in technology: if we put it into an algorithm, it becomes objective, fair, impartial. Bitcoin would be the ultimate example of this. But let's think about it for two seconds: every line of code was written by people with values, interests, and a very specific context (mainly libertarian cypherpunks from the 90s/2000s in the U.S.). It didn't come from nowhere. Mathematics are neutral, yes, but what is assumed about what they are applied to... not so much.

In practice, the protocol does not know your name or your flag. Anyone with internet can run a node or make a transaction. That is true and it is powerful. But look at the incentive structure: mining rewards those who have more hashpower, that is, more money for equipment and cheap energy. The new issuance goes to those who have already invested heavily. Those who arrive late or with little capital start at a brutal disadvantage. It's not malice of the code, it's the design: absolute scarcity plus individual sovereignty plus zero intervention. That is not neutrality; it is an absolute ideology in Bytes.

I am concerned that by repeating "code is law" and "it is neutral, period" we wash our hands of the real consequences. If the system ends up concentrating more wealth in a few hands (whales who bought cheap in 2010-2013 or industrial miners), or leaves out the majority who cannot invest upfront, we are not talking about material neutrality. It is formal neutrality: the rules are the same for everyone... but the starting point never was.

And we haven't even talked about the digital divide. Not everyone has stable access to the internet, cheap electricity, or the knowledge to manage wallets without intermediaries. In the end, many end up trusting exchanges or custodians that replicate the same vices of traditional banks. Technology does not eliminate intermediaries; it displaces them. That said, Bitcoin has things that no bank or government can match: it is open, auditable by anyone, and once you are in, no one can change the rules arbitrarily to screw you over in particular. That makes it more resilient and, in a certain sense, fairer in the long run than a system where the rules depend on who is in power.

For me, true neutrality would be that we could all start from a similar place, but in the real world, that does not happen. Bitcoin is not a clean mirror; it reflects the values of those who created it and of those who adopted it early on. It is neither the demon nor the neutral savior that some think. It is a brutally effective tool with a philosophy behind it, and it's good to recognize that, to use it with eyes wide open.

FIN.

What do you all think? Do you believe that neutrality is real, or is it a nice narrative we tell ourselves to avoid discussing the uncomfortable? I am interested in the debate, without fanaticism.

@PabloDAgata
#BTC☀ #bitcoin #crytocurrency #BitcoinDebate