Geyser’s new Launchpad – a genius move, or first step down a path to a centralized Bitcoin Launchpad? I'm talking about their social-gated access. Having projects collect 21 followers per project before project can use full crowdfunding features? It sounds simple, but it's not!
Bitcoin: Permissionless Innovation or Echo Chamber?
Bitcoin, at its heart, is about freedom. It's about permissionless innovation. Now, anyone with a truly great idea and the drive to create can take a shot at launching their project. They can then pursue funding to make it a reality. This is how Bitcoin can thrive.
One of the appeals of Bitcoin is that it is censorship resistant. It’s a creative digital wild west, where no one has to check in with a gatekeeper to let their ideas thrive. Unlike any of its predecessors, the new Launchpad adds a social filter. Is this filter needed to weed out the duds of low-quality projects? Or does it more insidiously censor the ones that may be out of step with the current social standards of the Bitcoin community?
What if Satoshi had to get 21 followers before launching Bitcoin?
Twenty-One Followers: A High Bar?
At first glance, 21 followers might appear to be a silly obstacle. This is Bitcoin. Everything matters.
This mandate changes the conversation from creating an incredible product to creating an amazing brand on social media.
Is Geyser now creating a Bitcoin purity test of their own in the process? In what world are projects not evaluated based on technical merit? Or are they judged too on their ability to create social media fireworks and cater to the tastes of a tiny class of early adopters? What then happens to the weird, the experimental, the truly innovative projects—ones that don’t even particularly fit into existing social categories or trades categories?
We found the counterargument that this would filter out “low-signal campaigns” to be a pretty convincing one. After all, no one wants to be the person or the agency that wastes time and money on projects that are clearly bound for failure. So who is even the judge of what qualifies as a “low-signal campaign?” Should a centralizing platform really be making those decisions? I’d contend that the market ought to be the final arbiter of such a thing.
Laissez-Faire Bitcoin: The Only Way?
Bitcoin's strength lies in its decentralized nature. It’s a healthy free market of ideas. The strongest projects will float to the top through actual market demand, avoiding a tendency to lean on an artificial form of social proofing. Geyser’s recent move to impose social gating undermines the freedoms of the market. This change would stall out priceless projects before they ever see the light of day.
I get the appeal of wanting to make a more polished, curated experience. Geyser, a company started in Sheridan, Wyoming, in 2022, hopes to be financially self-sustaining by 2026. This is a business, after all. The 5% platform fee (waived for anyone who self-hosts a Lightning node) is perfectly fair. But the Launchpad?
We don’t want to be in a situation where we try to force our own social or political priorities into the technology itself. Bitcoin is for everyone. Second, it needs to remain a permissionless space for innovation to flourish. No one should be excluded from building or contributing just because they have no social media influence. Or do we truly want to roll the dice on fostering elitist cliques among the Bitcoin audience? Or do we want to make sure newcomers to the field don’t lose hope?
We should not give up the major, foundational aspects of Bitcoin for the illusion of increased efficiency or social acceptance.
I say let the market decide. Let the best projects win. And let's keep Bitcoin free.
I say let the market decide. Let the best projects win. And let's keep Bitcoin free.
