Stephan Livera

The year 2025 marks a shift in the global Bitcoin sentiment. We may be crossing the chasm—from late adopters to early majority, and more critically, into the hands of institutions, sovereign wealth funds, and nation-states. ETFs, regulatory frameworks, and elite capital are reshaping the narrative.

But is this Bitcoin’s natural evolution—or a threat to its cypherpunk roots?

This debate gives voice to both sides of the aisle. The cypherpunk camp will defend the core values of privacy, censorship resistance, and grassroots scaling. Meanwhile, institutional advocates will argue that integration with the traditional financial system is inevitable—and even necessary for global adoption.

Who’s right? Will Bitcoin stay a tool for sovereign individuals, or become another layer of the legacy system? In 30 years, will we have real no-KYC self-custody—or will Bitcoin be ruled from within TradFi?

Is Bitcoin ruled by miners, users, or node runners—or is it something more emergent and social? As debates around miner centralization and proposed economic changes (like demurrage) gain traction, one question becomes unavoidable: who should hold the power in a decentralized system? This debate explores the delicate balance of incentives, the risks of changing core rules, and whether Bitcoin’s strength lies more in its code… or its community.