Samson Mow's suggestion to introduce a new Bitcoin unit, the "Finney," representing one twenty-one millionth of the total supply, has certainly stirred the pot. While the intention – tackling unit bias and highlighting Bitcoin's scarcity – is laudable, I believe this seemingly simple proposal could open a Pandora's Box of unintended consequences. As just an interested bystander to the crypto space, I for one hope we can all be cautiously optimistic about this.
Confusion Not Clarity Awaits Us?
The main argument for a new unit seems to be that it’s easier for people to understand and therefore makes Bitcoin more attractive to newcomers. Does it really? Introducing a new separate unit is more likely to cause confusion than clear things up, particularly for newcomers to the Bitcoin space. Picture having to explain satoshis, Bitcoin and today, Finneys to someone who doesn’t even understand fiat currency.
It's like trying to teach someone metric when they're already struggling with inches and feet. You’re not simplifying at all, you’re creating a whole other level of complexity. The current system may not be ideal, but at least it is known. Wallets, exchanges, even educational resources are all geared towards sats and Bitcoin’s long-term potential. Any new unit requires broad stylistic adoption and integration, a process thuddingly vulnerable to committed antagonism and disarray.
Additionally, the altcoin comparison, though fun, seems like a red herring. Yes, that might be a shock at first to see Ethereum valued at $9,200 per “Finney” equivalent. But are these fundamental changes to Ethereum’s value just because Bitcoin is going to change its granular units of measurement. Of course not. It's a clever marketing tactic, but it doesn't address the fundamental differences in the technology and philosophy behind these cryptocurrencies. It’s akin to determining the quality of a car based on how many lug nuts the vehicle has.
Centralization Lurks In The Shadows?
In fact, one of Bitcoin’s greatest strengths is its decentralized control. However well-intentioned, creating a new unit might unintentionally do the opposite—centralize power even further. How? Consider this: Exchanges and custodial services will likely be the first to adopt the "Finney." This gives them a significant advantage. They can independently market themselves as “Finney-friendly” and start attracting users who prefer the new unit to the old one.
Early-adopting, large-scale platforms might be incentivized to further centralize their Bitcoin balances. It is likely that this concentration would provide them with disproportionate power over the network. We’ve heard this song before with other crypto “advancements” like ICOs and DAOs. Aiming to improve user experience is a laudable aspiration. It can become a reverse land grab very easily, by centralized interests tightly controlling the process.
Think about it: smaller exchanges and independent wallets might struggle to implement the changes quickly, putting them at a disadvantage. The “Finney,” meant to democratize Bitcoin, might tragically centralize it even more! This holds true particularly in the case of cross-border payments where standardization is the name of the game. A multi-currency adoption approach would slow the pace and adoption of Bitcoin as a global currency, limiting its potential.
Tinkering Undermines Core Value or Not?
There's a certain beauty in Bitcoin's immutability. Its fixed supply of 21 million is one of the main pillars of its value proposition. Constantly tinkering with its fundamental aspects, even something as seemingly minor as the unit of account, can undermine its perceived stability and long-term value.
Just imagine if you played chess and the rules changed on you every game. Fortunately, you can make the game a lot more interesting for the long haul. In the process, you will likely alienate the purists and even undercut the game’s historical significance. Bitcoin’s value is far from what it is technology-wise. It’s resident in its deep traditions, colorful culture, and uncompromising commitment to progressive values.
I get the counterargument of wanting to make Bitcoin easier for people to understand, level unit bias, and other things. We must be clear-eyed. We should not jump to make changes that would have significant unintended consequences or that lack sufficient evidence. In situations like this, the best thing to do might be to just not touch it. Prioritize educational efforts, iterate on user education through a better user interface, and allow Bitcoin to shine on its own merits.
At the end of the day, I think the “Finney” proposal is well-intentioned, but a solution in search of a problem. This unrolls an entire can of worms. It would create unnecessary confusion, increase centralization, and in the end, undermine Bitcoin’s most important value proposition. Maybe instead of changing the units, we should work on changing people’s perceptions, one satoshi at a time.
