The Myth That Isn’t One
A billionaire with a strong stage presence, Dan Peña, shares an explosive thesis at conferences and across YouTube stages: The moment the world learns who truly created Bitcoin, the price crashes to zero. Not because of the tech, he says. Not because of math. But because of a broken belief.
And yes – Peña means it. To him, anything meant to last must have an identifiable power behind it. Trust, in his worldview, is built through control, dominance, and enforcement. And that – he argues – is exactly what Bitcoin lacks. Too anonymous, too unclear, too “airy”. No state guarantee. No authority. No accountability. Just: a myth of neutrality, fed by code written by an unknown.
What Is Truth – and What Is Projection?
It sounds plausible – but it’s only part of the story. Peña isn’t talking so much about Bitcoin as about his worldview. To him, decentralisation is an empty promise. Because it answers to no boss. And from his perspective, that means it cannot enforce itself. No enforcement, no order. No order, no longevity. No longevity, no trust.
In short: if you believe in decentralisation, Peña thinks you believe in magic. And magic ends the moment the curtain drops.
But here’s the real question:
Is belief in decentralisation truly the same as illusion? Or just unfamiliar – to those who only know hierarchy?
Decentralisation: Visible, Not Spiritual
Bitcoin – and many other blockchains like Infinity-Economics (IE) – are not built on fairy tales but on verifiable mechanisms:
The code is open.
The rules are clear.
The nodes are distributed across the globe.
There is no central instance deciding everything.
And: No one enforces anything – except the consensus of all participants.
What can be mathematically verified is not a myth. It’s just different from what Peña knows.
What Actually Runs on Faith – and What Doesn’t
Here’s what Peña doesn’t mention: Our current monetary system also runs on belief – just a different kind.
Fiat money relies on:
political promises
institutional authority
debt as the norm
and the repeated breaking of old commitments
In other words: fiat demands blind belief in individuals.
Native blockchains, on the other hand, demand traceable trust in rules.
A small – but fundamental – difference.
A System Shift – Not a System Overthrow
Anyone who thinks native blockchains like Bitcoin or Infinity-Economics are anti-government has misunderstood the concept. They’re not an attack – they’re an alternative offer. Voluntary, open, and without coercion. Their aim isn’t to seize control, but to make control unnecessary.
They’re not saying: “We’re replacing the state.”
They’re saying: “You can join – but you don’t have to.”
No wonder people like Peña struggle with this. In a world where power equals meaning, anything without a boss seems like a bad joke.
Power Logic Meets Voluntarism
Dan Peña thinks in familiar patterns:
Who leads?
Who wins?
Who enforces?
He lives in a worldview of hierarchy – and that’s his right. But his thesis on Bitcoin’s downfall is not analysis. It’s projection.
He simply cannot imagine that:
honest
peaceful
community-driven people
could create something big that works – without command chains, backrooms, or central power.
When the Name Drops – and Nothing Happens?
And even if tomorrow we learn that Satoshi Nakamoto is an old banker, a hacker from the underground, or a university lab algorithm – what exactly would that change in the code?
What if no one needs to obey for the rules to still apply?
Then the belief never broke.
Only the projection did.
Final Point
Those who only believe in power cannot recognise freedom – even when it works.