Bitcoin SV is not the true Bitcoin, if the true Bitcoin we are referring to is the one that sprung forth from the mind of Satoshi Nakamoto. Bitcoin Cash and all of the other forks also fall short in this respect. Despite the fact that this is the case if Nakamoto’s whitepaper is understood to be the correct definition of Bitcoin, numerous communities still exist that believe the opposite is true.
With this in mind, Bitcoin SV has recently thrust itself further into the spotlight due to the continued assurances of Craig Wright, its’ key supporter, that he is Satoshi. What makes matters more controversial in this respect is that one of the Bitcoin community members who spoke out against Wright’s comments was recently threatened by the SV community.
In response to this threat and the powerful voices of the Bitcoin community in support of the member in question, crypto exchange juggernauts like Binance and Kraken decided to de-list Bitcoin SV completely.
Though both of these companies(Binance in particular) made it clear that their decision was based on a comprehensive review process of the asset, an outcry has sprung up that claims the de-listing represents censorship that it antithetical to the values that the blockchain industry espouses.
Overall, this opposition seems to mostly come from the Bitcoin SV community itself, which should not be surprising since these de-listings will significantly threaten SV’s liquidity and value. Calvin Ayre, who together with Craig Wright, leads the SV project has even go so far as to claim that an SV-based exchange may save SV.
One of the major issues with this proposal is that this new exchange was financed by one of OkEx’s advisors, which is basically the only major exchange to still provide SV with a large level of trading volume.
Therefore, before the SV community cries censorship, they should arguably investigate themselves for centralization related to the groups that tout SV as the true Bitcoin. On the other hand, none of this proves that the continued de-listing of SV is not a problem.
As Michael Casey mentions in his article on the subject today, if crypto exchanges have this much power to kill the liquidity and as a result, the overall value of a project, then we are not doing something right. To understand this can easily be argued to be true, consider the power of social media platforms.
What happens when both Twitter and Facebook cut off a well-known personality? In short, he or she has just lost access to two of the most globally popular platforms for sharing any sort of news. Following this, these personalities or businesses lose large revenue streams and protests begin about undue censorship related to the right to freedom of speech.
How does this relate to SV’s de-listing, you might ask? It’s actually quite simple. If exchanges can de-list any project at any time, just imagine how much power they have to influence the value of any blockchain project. Casey goes on to mention that without another “business use case,” crypto and blockchain projects might begin to face much more serious issues in the near future.
If we take certain quotes from industry proponents and critics into account as Casey does, then this possibility is much easier to understand. In summary, crypto exchanges provide the blockchain industry’s only use case that has scaled to large numbers of users. Simultaneously, they do not really support individual blockchains by making any sort of meaningful connection to them.
Considering this, it is easy to see as well why individual crypto projects are struggling to scale. Most users are just using cryptocurrencies to trade and have not yet been properly incentivized to do anything else with them. Since these exchanges are walled off from the individual crypto ecosystems while also offering the only fiat gateways, it’s hard to see how any project can scale without them.
Why should anyone use crypto for anything else when they can theoretically make large sums of money by trading it on exchanges? What makes all of this worse is that even with certain utility tokens, users are required to begin by purchasing them on exchanges.
In the end, if we circle back to the de-listing of SV, the problem comes down to not an issue of neutrality as Casey suggests, but an issue of not having another recourse. Yes the SV leaders were outspoken to the point of harassment and alleged fraud, but does that speak to the project itself? Is a crypto project not decentralized from any single group? Until crypto has another killer use case that provides it with a high level of liquidity outside or exchanges or until the exchange model is made more decentralized, then we will have to allow them to pick and choose what projects will succeed. They are, with the exception of decentralized exchanges, private businesses after all.
By: BGN Editorial Staff