Bitcoin as a Neutral Asset: Can it Really Stay Apolitical in a Fragmented World

[endut15]

With everything happening globally, from political tensions to economic shifts, Bitcoin is often championed as a truly neutral, apolitical money. It's supposed to be censorship-resistant and borderless, right?

But I'm starting to wonder if it can really stay completely outside of global politics and conflicts. We've seen discussions around sanctions, attempts to control usage in certain regions, and countries looking at it differently based on their own agendas. Can Bitcoin truly maintain its apolitical, neutral status in a world that seems to be getting more fragmented? Or will it inevitably get drawn into geopolitical battles, even if it's just by association?

Curious to hear the community's thoughts on this complex topic. Is neutrality its biggest strength, or its biggest challenge in the coming years?

[stadus]

Can Bitcoin truly maintain its apolitical, neutral status in a world that seems to be getting more fragmented? Or will it inevitably get drawn into geopolitical battles, even if it's just by association?

Curious to hear the community's thoughts on this complex topic. Is neutrality its biggest strength, or its biggest challenge in the coming years?

I think Yes, because major countries have already started regulating Bitcoin, and that adds weight to the idea that it can’t be banned globally. One country might be against it, but another will embrace it. Bitcoin has already proven its usefulness as some nations have even used it to bypass financial restrictions. And the fact that it's still stable despite news of wars between countries says a lot about its resilience.

This isn’t an asset that can be controlled by just one powerful nation, its strength comes from being decentralized, with interest and support coming from all over the world. As long as many people and institutions have a stake in Bitcoin, its foundation remains solid, and there’s little reason to worry about its long-term future.

[Doan9269]

Can Bitcoin truly maintain its apolitical, neutral status in a world that seems to be getting more fragmented? Or will it inevitably get drawn into geopolitical battles, even if it's just by association?

If you know why bitcoin is being made a decentralized digital currency, then you already have the answers to these, because bitcoin is censorship resistant and cannot be controlled by any centralized entity or leadership, this also calls for knowing more about what p2p signifies that we all make use of this while excluding the influence of a third party or government authority in making a transaction of digital asset.

Curious to hear the community's thoughts on this complex topic. Is neutrality its biggest strength, or its biggest challenge in the coming years?

Its not a challenge in any ways, instead, its what could serves as strength to vigor the appearance and application of bitcoin on every facet of live.

[arzuo]

No central power or authority controls Bitcoin. It is operated as a peer-to-peer network by thousands of nodes worldwide.
This decentralized and open source protocol approach and Bitcoin's code are publicly available (anyone can audit it) making it impossible for any government, institution or political group to control it.
Also, unlike fiat, Bitcoin has a fixed supply that is controlled by coding and its permission less use is free from political influence.

So it can be said that Bitcoin BTC was born and designed to be apolitical asset in the way we already have and enjoy it. 

[Lida93]

Can Bitcoin truly maintain its apolitical, neutral status in a world that seems to be getting more fragmented? Or will it inevitably get drawn into geopolitical battles, even if it's just by association?

Curious to hear the community's thoughts on this complex topic. Is neutrality its biggest strength, or its biggest challenge in the coming years?

I think Yes, because major countries have already started regulating Bitcoin, and that adds weight to the idea that it can’t be banned globally. One country might be against it, but another will embrace it. Bitcoin has already proven its usefulness as some nations have even used it to bypass financial restrictions. And the fact that it's still stable despite news of wars between countries says a lot about its resilience.

This isn’t an asset that can be controlled by just one powerful nation, its strength comes from being decentralized, with interest and support coming from all over the world. As long as many people and institutions have a stake in Bitcoin, its foundation remains solid, and there’s little reason to worry about its long-term future.

What would have become the fears of many people around the globe about bitcoin getting to lose it's apolitical (nonpartisan) phenomenon is if there was a living figure existing as an owner. I think that Satoshi Nakamoto has thought of a lot of situations that may interfere with the decentralisation and the potential of bitcoin as a digital currency, hence his disappearance, leaving the coin to no single entity but to a decentralised ecosystem.

[Ucy]

Bitcoin will definitely not be involved in World's politics. Politics is immoral, like game theory. It  isn't going to part of the evil.
It will remain neutral and be open to people and even governments (especially the resistance) who wish to use it for good, like to survive tyranny, oppression, lawlessness, choas, as long as they aren't trying to escape true justice
Countries or governments who were unjustly sactioned are free to use it especially in p2p decentralized manner to avoid rogue centralized exchanges or platforms from targeting them. I'm particularly referring to Russia who is helping the people of Donbas and others escape oppression from tyrannical governments who wish to erase their true identity and force them to accept immoral way of life.
Bitcoin will work against those who try to violate its sacred principles for no just reason, or use its system to target innocent Bitcoin users fleeing tyranny.
It definitely won't tolerate any attempt to use its system for immoral purposes. We must work together as community in making sure violators are exposed and get the required justice.

[BlackBoss_]

With everything happening globally, from political tensions to economic shifts, Bitcoin is often championed as a truly neutral, apolitical money. It's supposed to be censorship-resistant and borderless, right?

But I'm starting to wonder if it can really stay completely outside of global politics and conflicts. We've seen discussions around sanctions, attempts to control usage in certain regions, and countries looking at it differently based on their own agendas. Can Bitcoin truly maintain its apolitical, neutral status in a world that seems to be getting more fragmented? Or will it inevitably get drawn into geopolitical battles, even if it's just by association

Bitcoin is Bitcoin, and people are just too hilarious by trying to connect Bitcoin with stocks, gold, politics, economy and more. Bitcoin if it is good, and has a design against fiat currency inflation issues, will surely be favorite by many people globally. Over time, more people will realize this strength of Bitcoin and demand on Bitcoin would be increased a lot while we know supply remains the same with 21 millions of bitcoins in total supply. More important, future supply will decrease (halve) every 210,000 blocks or after about every 4 years.

Wars, politics, and anything else won't stop this Bitcoin cycle. Effects from them are only temporarily while in long term, Bitcoin is bullish.
https://charts.bitbo.io/yearly-candles/
Casebitcoin (useful).

[Apocollapse]

Bitcoin is neutral, but the holders aren't.

That's why whenever there's a global crisis, events or politics, it would affect Bitcoin because some holders are making decision depends on global events.

Bitcoin is really censorship resistant, if you don't believe that, try to fly to country where Bitcoin is banned and try to send coins from there. I'm sure it's possible, but I don't know your ending, you could be get caught by police.

[aoluain]

But I'm starting to wonder if it can really stay completely outside of global politics and conflicts. We've seen discussions around sanctions, attempts to control usage in certain regions, and countries looking at it differently based on their own agendas. Can Bitcoin truly maintain its apolitical, neutral status in a world that seems to be getting more fragmented? Or will it inevitably get drawn into geopolitical battles, even if it's just by association?

Does it matter?

Bitcoin is decentralised, no one entity controls it and as we have seen the market
rea ts/or not to various global events, large or small but those events dont affect
"Bitcoin" they affect peoples sentiment.

Because of Bitcoins decentralisation it will persevere through any geopolitical
issues and possibly more and more people will see and realise the benefits of
HODL'ing Bitcoin in turbulent times.

[avikz]

Curious to hear the community's thoughts on this complex topic. Is neutrality its biggest strength, or its biggest challenge in the coming years?

It would have stayed apolitical if no governments would have purchased it or talked about creating a bitcoin reserve. Since big corporations are buying it, especially in US, it's not apolitical anymore. Just like oil, countries have already started building their Bitcoin reserve. So it's not apolitical.

That's why I never cheer when some big corporations buy bitcoin. Bitcoin should really have stayed with commoners like us. We really needed something of our own which is slowly becoming the puppet of the corporates and governments.

[Fiatless]

Curious to hear the community's thoughts on this complex topic. Is neutrality its biggest strength, or its biggest challenge in the coming years?

Bitcoin is apolitical, but the government is dragging it into politics. I have heard Donald Trump say that if the US doesn't occupy the top position in the Bitcoin space, China will. With some countries showing interest in using Bitcoin as a reserve, the coin might be used as a political tool. Decentralization is Bitcoin's biggest strength, and I don't see it becoming a problem in the future.

[Floxynice]

With everything happening globally, from political tensions to economic shifts, Bitcoin is often championed as a truly neutral, apolitical money. It's supposed to be censorship-resistant and borderless, right?

But I'm starting to wonder if it can really stay completely outside of global politics and conflicts. We've seen discussions around sanctions, attempts to control usage in certain regions, and countries looking at it differently based on their own agendas. Can Bitcoin truly maintain its apolitical, neutral status in a world that seems to be getting more fragmented? Or will it inevitably get drawn into geopolitical battles, even if it's just by association?

Curious to hear the community's thoughts on this complex topic. Is neutrality its biggest strength, or its biggest challenge in the coming years?

Bitcoin does not belong to any individual, organization, or government. Anyone can have access to Bitcoin because it was designed that way. Bitcoin not being owned and controlled by any single political organization is Bitcoin's biggest strength. You can imagine if Bitcoin were to be controlled by a single government, we would see more threats of bans and counter-bans from one government or country to another in retaliation to an existing economic or political dispute.

For now, we can only be concerned about regulations and the political guys who pretend to be pro-Bitcoin just to win elections.

[henry_of_skalitz]

Curious to hear the community's thoughts on this complex topic. Is neutrality its biggest strength, or its biggest challenge in the coming years?

Bitcoin is apolitical, but the government is dragging it into politics. I have heard Donald Trump say that if the US doesn't occupy the top position in the Bitcoin space, China will. With some countries showing interest in using Bitcoin as a reserve, the coin might be used as a political tool. Decentralization is Bitcoin's biggest strength, and I don't see it becoming a problem in the future.

Agreed.

BTC doesn't rely on anybody - and it should stay that way for sure.

[luckyspirit]

Curious to hear the community's thoughts on this complex topic. Is neutrality its biggest strength, or its biggest challenge in the coming years?

There is nothing and nobody who can change Bitcoin and because of that it will always be a neutral asset. You must understand something important. Can some nazi group, satanist group or something crazy like that adopt Bitcoin and worship it? Yes they can. Does this make Bitcoin political or hijacked? No. This is the nature of something that is censorship resistant. Anyone can use it for whatever purpose they want, good or bad. Bad people using Bitcoin does not change Bitcoin. Some political parties making Bitcoin their symbol does not make Bitcoin political either.

[Pablo-wood]

It depends on individuals. We have very few bitcoin holders who run their own node and majority of bitcoin holders who trust custodial wallets with their coins. If we all go completely decentralized (non custodial) preferably running our own node then  bitcoin will only be a myth in the eyes of political leaders. 

Political leaders are crafty. They know the can't penetrate into bitcoin directly so the are trying hard to see that people buy into the idea of custodial wallet so they can have full control of people's asset. We can only outsmart the government by staying far from custodial wallets.

[d5000]

It would have stayed apolitical if no governments would have purchased it or talked about creating a bitcoin reserve. Since big corporations are buying it, especially in US, it's not apolitical anymore. Just like oil, countries have already started building their Bitcoin reserve. So it's not apolitical.

I share that slight uncomfortable sentiment about governments' strategic reserves.

Now: in my case at least, that's related more to the issue of a government with a large Bitcoin reserve positioning itself in the case of a hard fork, just like Vitalik Buterin did in the ETC/ETH fork (Vitalik's ETH "reserve" was even larger than any strategic reserve of a country will be). And that could have consequences harmful for Bitcoin's value, for example in the case of a Bitcoin update which adds privacy -- and the government(s) not liking it.

But could a government use Bitcoin politically against internal or external adversaries? That's something I doubt.

One scenario that comes into mind: Country A is at war with Country B. Country A has large gold reserves and almost no BTC, while Country B has both gold and BTC reserves. Country B could thus manipulate the gold market using Bitcoin, for example selling their gold reserves to buy more Bitcoin, with the intention to devalue the gold reserves of the adversary. Basically a "pump and dump" on nation-state level.

However, even in such a case, Bitcoin itself would still be apolitical. The manipulation in this case would be political, but Country A could also be buying Bitcoin in this case once the manipulation has started and it would at least decrease the effect of the manipulation on its own reserves' value.

[Cookdata]

With everything happening globally, from political tensions to economic shifts, Bitcoin is often championed as a truly neutral, apolitical money. It's supposed to be censorship-resistant and borderless, right?

But I'm starting to wonder if it can really stay completely outside of global politics and conflicts. We've seen discussions around sanctions, attempts to control usage in certain regions, and countries looking at it differently based on their own agendas. Can Bitcoin truly maintain its apolitical, neutral status in a world that seems to be getting more fragmented? Or will it inevitably get drawn into geopolitical battles, even if it's just by association?

Curious to hear the community's thoughts on this complex topic. Is neutrality its biggest strength, or its biggest challenge in the coming years?

Outside politics? The price will tank believe me. It's politics that brought it to where it's been traded today, Trump political impact is why we have Bitcoin there trading t $100k, if he stop supporting and perhaps says he doesn't want Bitcoin again, do you know the amount of damage the price is going to, it wouldn't end well and institutional investors will leave, that's when you will see SEC and the likes want to be doing due diligence about companies that has Bitcoin.

Bitcoin has been fighting censorship resistance for long but can it really do that completely? I think yes but there is limit to how it's going to expand and trust me the government will have an hedge they will want to tarnish the image. Look at the Bitcoin reserve, it's because of politics it all started, if this government and the next says they aren't going on support that idea, it will kill the performance and confidence people are having on Bitcoin, it's better left this way.

[avikz]

It would have stayed apolitical if no governments would have purchased it or talked about creating a bitcoin reserve. Since big corporations are buying it, especially in US, it's not apolitical anymore. Just like oil, countries have already started building their Bitcoin reserve. So it's not apolitical.

I share that slight uncomfortable sentiment about governments' strategic reserves.

It's a real threat to Bitcoin. Bitcoin has always thrived without the support from corporates and governments. It used to be a common people's currency system. At least that's how Satoshi had envisaged it. But unfortunately, governments and corporates are positioning themselves in a way where they can manipulate the market at their will.

I am not saying that these entities will manipulate the market. But having that power to manipulate is scary to others. Bitcoin as an asset is not political, but it's usage can be political and can also harm the common holders like us. That's my concern!

[retreat]

It would have stayed apolitical if no governments would have purchased it or talked about creating a bitcoin reserve. Since big corporations are buying it, especially in US, it's not apolitical anymore. Just like oil, countries have already started building their Bitcoin reserve. So it's not apolitical.

That's why I never cheer when some big corporations buy bitcoin. Bitcoin should really have stayed with commoners like us. We really needed something of our own which is slowly becoming the puppet of the corporates and governments.

I agree with your statement that Bitcoin remains apolitical only if governments and institutions stay out of it. If governments or institutions remain entrenched in it, Bitcoin will potentially be impacted by any political or economic issues, whether it's a massive sell-off or other events that could potentially impact the price. While Bitcoin cannot be directly intervened, as more governments and institutions build their reserves, we will see an increase in centralized Bitcoin ownership, which is something we don't want.

[Mate2237]

I think that you are the one that is missing it because Bitcoin is one thing that is a political what we are seeing is that people are trying to cover under the umbrella of Bitcoin to to sell them self to the public there by making it look like Bitcoin is one thing that is political but in the real sense I can say that Bitcoin is actually ment for all Bitcoin has no political color that it is attached to.



Bitcoin has become a tool of political strategy these two days because from what I can see political leaders from all over the world are now aligning themselves with Bitcoin so that they can get the sympathy of Bitcoin followers we should clearly know when politics is in play and remove Bitcoin from it