The History of Maxi
In the land of crypto, the term “Bitcoin maxi” was termed in 2014 to describe those who think that “an environment of multiple competing cryptocurrencies is undesirable, that it is wrong to launch ‘yet another coin’, and that it is both righteous and inevitable that the Bitcoin currency comes to take a monopoly position in the cryptocurrency scene”.
At the time the term wasn’t meant so much as a pejorative, but instead as a way of categorizing someone’s beliefs. The idea at the time was that bitcoin maxis had a rational thought process for believing as such.
Since then, however, the term has become a pejorative. The term “bitcoin maxi” has come to be used to describe those who believe, with a certain closed-mindedness or lack of imagination, that bitcoin is the most superior cryptocurrency. It’s used to describe those who are incapable of changing their mind on the subject.
Some other ways to think about the change in meaning are:
The term went from describing those who “believe in” bitcoin maximalism to describing those who “believe in believing” in bitcoin maximalism.
The term went from describing those who believe in bitcoin maximalism as a means to an end, to those who believe in bitcoin maximalism as an end in itself.
In the former case, the bitcoin maximalism was something grounded in reality. Bitcoin maximalism was thought to make sense because it would mean a better outcome for the world in one way or another.
In the latter case, the end is no longer grounded in reality. It is completely cyclical! Bitcoin maxi because bitcoin maxi because bitcoin maxi because… You get the idea.
Zooming in on the Transformation
This transformation of meaning is pretty interesting. A natural thought is to wonder, why did it take place?
My thinking is that originally the term was used with the former less pejorative meaning because people thought there was a chance that bitcoin maximalism was a rationally defensible position.
Then, over time as the bitcoin maxi position fell to more and more faults, the term came to be used with the latter more pejorative meaning. People no longer saw bitcoin maximalism as a defensible position, and thus came to see bitcoin maxis thinking illogically and with a closed mind.
Why would people stick around with an indefensible position? Well, humans aren’t exactly the best at changing their minds; they like to stick to cached thoughts whether it be because of ties to their identity, community, sunk costs, etc.
Generalizing
This phenomenon is not specific to bitcoin. What is the general pattern here?
Looking at the transformation that took place for bitcoin and the term’s current usage, we can generalize “maxi” to be a label for something which while typically supported as a means to an end, is instead supported as an end in itself.
An example of usage outside of crypto could be to describe a “vegan maxi”:
A vegan is somebody who is plant-based as a means to an end. That end is typically some combination of animal ethics, environment, and health reasons. They are plant-based to the extent that it serves these goals.
A vegan maxi is somebody who is vegan as an end in itself. They are vegan in order to be vegan. Their actions become disconnected from their impacts on animals, the environment, and health. Hypothetically, were it discovered that being vegan is worse for animals and the environment, vegan maxis would continue to be vegan.
The Problem With Being a Maxi
The issue with being a maxi is self-evident. It implies irrational thinking which has lost its tethering to reality.
While one originally took on a belief to serve some purpose, it has since (for one reason or another) lost its connection to that purpose. And yet they continue to hold the belief!
The other day I was discussing the idea that “code is law” with a friend and we had to remind ourselves that the point of “code is law” should be something greater than itself. This helped us to frame our discussion in a lens more conducive to thinking.
All this to say that when evaluating beliefs, it’s worth thinking about whether they are maxi beliefs that no longer serve their original purpose. If so, you’d be best to rid yourself of them.
Citation needed? I haven’t been following this topic closely, but I’m pretty sure this is still highly contested territory so I’m surprised that you’re either asking us to trust you on this, or assuming an already existing consensus among your audience.
Gotcha thanks yea I should have elaborated more.
I think the general consensus is that it’s very unlikely bitcoin inevitably takes a monopoly position in the cryptocurrency scene, which is what the bitcoin maxi position is referring to here.
Vitalik goes into reasons here: https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/11/20/bitcoin-maximalism-currency-platform-network-effects/
But I could have been more charitable to the bitcoin maxi position.
Have you seen Vitalik’s recent In Defense of Bitcoin Maximalism? There’s some speculation that it was an April Fools joke, which Vitalik addressed in an interview at https://youtu.be/m4vYEn_Twog?t=975. In short, it’s not his “primary opinion” but he sees “benefits in both sides”. Seems to contradict your “People no longer saw bitcoin maximalism as a defensible position” statement.
A good point about the general pattern of conversion from a belief to belief in belief. There must be a standard name for this phenomenon, though, and “maxi” doesn’t ring a bell outside bitcoin true believers. The terms that come to mind are “radical”, “orthodox”, “militant” and “fundamentalist”, depending on the domain.
Gotcha yea I hadn’t considered those terms; my thinking was that there isn’t an established standard name for this phenomenon. I haven’t seen a standard term for it on lesswrong, but you would think if such a term existed it would be found here pretty easily. Of the ones you list I think “orthodox” fits the best, but they are all highly overloaded and generally used with religious connotations.
I agree that “maxi” doesn’t ring a bell outside of the crypto space right now, but my thinking was to introduce it as a term to represent this idea of “belief in belief” and have it spread from there.
“Maximalist” does have a general definition not specific to crypto: a person who holds extreme views and is not prepared to compromise (Oxford languages).
Well, don’t rid yourself of beliefs that actually work. You’re arguing against having beliefs for the wrong reasons, and against having beliefs that won’t update when circumstances or knowledge changes. I fully agree with both of those motivations, but the advice should be find better grounding for your beliefs”, rather than “unconditionally dispose of those beliefs.”
It’s possible that Bitcoin will be the only survivor of the massive coin and scam expansion that’s inevitable as a new thing becomes popular. The root belief that starting new coins hurts everyone except the founders/scammers who get in early could be correct. And even people who believe this for the wrong reasons (they’ve heard it so often that they repeat it without thinking through the mechanisms) are correct in their behavior. Those people can improve their outcomes with some research and modeling that adds nuance and exceptions to that creed, but not by throwing it out entirely and putting lots of money into every new hotness that comes along.
Yes good point, I agree that it’s bad advice to ask people to dispose of beliefs which actually work.
I’d also say that disposing of the belief that “an environment of multiple competing cryptocurrencies is undesirable, that it is wrong to launch ‘yet another coin’, and that it is both righteous and inevitable that the Bitcoin currency comes to take a monopoly position in the cryptocurrency scene”, does not forbid somebody from investing in bitcoin based on some other belief.
I think the advice of asking somebody to find better grounding for beliefs is dangerous because it makes it harder for people to change their minds.
Overall the advice is a rule of thumb and should not be followed religiously. If you can coincidentally find new grounding for a belief who’s old grounding no longer makes sense, you should keep it like you said.