Bitcoin Magazine

A Circular Economy and the Four Archetypes of Bitcoiners

A few years ago, I made an unlikely bet: to build a Bitcoin circular economy in the heart of a fishing village in Brazil’s Northeast. No venture capitalists, no “crypto,” no empty promises. Only nodes, satoshis, in‑person education and plenty of sidewalk conversations. 

That is how Praia Bitcoin Jericoacoara was born: a radical experiment in financial sovereignty built with open source tools and feet in the sand.

In four years at Praia Bitcoin Jericoacoara, we turned a beach town into a living Bitcoin classroom: We onboarded families, shopkeepers and street vendors; taught self‑custody in small groups; installed reliable Lightning routes and point‑of‑sale tools; ran social programs paid in sats; and hosted meetups that made Bitcoin part of daily life.

Living on the Bitcoin standard, I began to see what is really happening at the technological edge. 

In August 2025, I published four short articles on X. Different in form and tone, they converged on the same question: What role should Bitcoin play, and what role should we play in building it? They came in fours:

• a field report on our work with the Bitcoin Community Bank in Jericoacoara
• a critique of bitcoin maximalism’s rigidity
• a diplomatic letter inviting Bhutan’s prime minister to consider the satoshi as a unit of account, and
• a public appeal to keep Bitcoin a peer‑to‑peer cash system. 

What they share is the desire to align practice, theory, and a future‑facing vision.

In the first piece, I shared the challenges and lessons from a real experiment: building a Bitcoin‑based circular economy in Northeast Brazil. Inspired by Bitcoin Beach in El Salvador, we rooted the Jericoacoara project in education, inclusion and local infrastructure. We installed servers, onboarded merchants and neighbors, created social programs and sought institutional recognition as a Community Bitcoin Bank.

We were rejected by the local authorities. Even in the face of the state’s legal and political unpreparedness, we moved forward with conviction. We believe that when Bitcoin is rooted in place, it can be more than money; it can be a tool for community transformation. Yet authorities struggled to understand this, and they denied our request to register what would have been the first Bitcoin community bank.

In the second piece, I confronted an ideological tension within the community itself. Maximalist rhetoric, which defends Bitcoin as the only legitimate project and treats the rest of “crypto” as scams, had its historical role. It helped protect the integrity of the ecosystem, exposed frauds and accelerated market maturation. But does it still serve the goal of large‑scale adoption? Does it help communicate Bitcoin’s value to newcomers? I caught myself ignoring relevant technological solutions simply because they were outside the maximalist bubble. 

After revisiting the discussion and reading every reply and quote, my conclusion was that other projects end up serving as funnels, sandboxes or distribution channels that drive people toward real Bitcoin adoption. Stablecoins, altcoins, memecoins, and centralized cryptocurrencies are moving toward Bitcoin, absorbing inflation and even helping to establish the prices of other commodities. Perhaps it is time for a new posture: not abandoning principles, but embracing a Bitcoin that keeps the focus on the essence while remaining willing to engage with a world in constant transformation, with skepticism and an open mind; by educating regulators that Bitcoin is the decentralized cryptocurrency and that all other projects are centralized cryptocurrencies.

In the third piece, I took this vision into the diplomatic arena. I wrote an open letter to Bhutan’s prime minister suggesting that the country consider adopting the satoshi as its national unit of account.

The proposal, more symbolic than technical, had a clear goal: to imagine how Bitcoin can engage with alternative development models that do not depend on the IMF or the dollar and that respect local culture and sovereignty. The reaction to the letter revealed something important: even within the Bitcoin ecosystem there are ideological lanes: conservatives, centrists and progressives, each trying to interpret the protocol through a distinct worldview.

This article is therefore a point of convergence. It ties together those three experiences (practical, ideological and diplomatic) to propose a fresh look at what we are really trying to build. More than repeating dogmas, this moment calls for discernment. More than talking about freedom, it is time to practice it where it is most needed — on the ground, in our language, in our institutions and in our relationships.

In the fourth piece, I distilled my open note to Bitcoin Core into a simple point: keep Bitcoin a peer‑to‑peer cash system, not a generic data host.

I argued that loosening default data‑carrying settings invites bloat, legal risk and reputational damage, and asked developers to think in centuries, not release cycles. I also noted that recent Core releases, v29 and v30, revisited how much extra data transactions may carry by default. That lives at the technical edge of the protocol — software defaults, not the monetary rules. Bitcoin is money. Like a banknote you can scribble on but not use to publish a book, transactions can include small notes but should not be hijacked for unrelated content.

This context raised a bigger question: What do we want Bitcoin to be? The exchange made the fault lines clear: different groups love Bitcoin for different reasons and accept different trade‑offs. In the next section, I name those lanes and show how they fit together.

Watching Bitcoin Knots gain visibility relative to Bitcoin Core, and hearing developers complain about its pull‑request process, reminded me of the First Follower lesson. Knots is largely maintained by a single developer. 

Movements do not scale because a lone leader is brilliant. They scale when early followers make participation visible and easy, lowering social risk and showing others exactly how to behave.

From inside the industry, spending countless hours analyzing geopolitics and future trends, I began to see Bitcoiners in four main categories, with the extremes on both sides clearly defined so let’s break them down. 

The Four Archetypes of Bitcoin

Bitcoin Database, Coordination Builders

Core belief: Bitcoin is a neutral public record. It can coordinate people and software. Money is one powerful use, not the only one.

What they prioritize: Time‑stamps and proofs; public records; identity attestations; new media on Bitcoin; social protocols like Nostr; building most features on upper layers so L1 stays stable.

What they get right: They attract builders and new users with fresh ideas and on‑ramps. More experiments mean more chances to find lasting utility.

Risks and blind spots: The spotlight can drift away from money. Too much nonmonetary data can waste block space and invite controversy. New systems sometimes reintroduce trusted middlemen.

Attitude to Lightning: Open, when it helps apps feel instant. Also explore other rails. Keep L1 simple.

North Star checks: Useful apps with real users; active developers; low, respectful footprint on L1.

Frequent examples: Casey Rodarmor and Ordinals; Muneeb Ali and Stacks; Burak and Ark research; Maxim Orlovsky and RGB; fiatjaf and Nostr; OpenTimestamps. (Note: this is illustrative, not endorsements.)

Tagline: “Bitcoin is a database.”

Bitcoin Central, Market Pragmatists

Core belief: Bitcoin is money and an asset. Price and liquidity drive adoption at scale and help fund security and development.

What they prioritize: ETFs and treasuries; compliant on‑ramps and off‑ramps; deep, healthy markets; education for investors and institutions.

What they get right: Liquidity brings the next wave of users and pays for builders, mining and education.

Risks and blind spots: Convenience custody and short‑term thinking. Distribution can concentrate in a few large hands.

Attitude to Lightning: Pragmatic. Use it when it helps reach more people.

North Star checks: Market depth and volumes; hashrate security budget; ETF and retail participation.

Frequent examples: Michael Saylor; iShares and Fidelity Bitcoin ETFs; market makers; on‑chain analysts. Edge Case: High leverage and over‑reliance on corporate treasuries.

Tagline: “We care about price.”

Bitcoin Conservatives, Monetary Purists

Core belief: Bitcoin is money. Protect the base layer. Scarcity, neutrality and self‑custody are nonnegotiable. Save first, then spend (e.g., in a circular economy).

What they prioritize: Simple, stable rules on L1; run your own node; education on keys, UTXOs, and fees; miner and client diversity; long time horizons.

What they get right: Clear incentives and strong culture. If money is broken, every price in the economy is wrong. Fix money first.

Risks and blind spots: UX and payments can lag. Newcomers may feel gatekept. Adoption can slow if everyday use is ignored.

Attitude to Lightning: Often skeptical. Prefer on‑chain finality and warn about complexity and custodial drift.

North Star checks: More coins in self‑custody; healthy node count; decentralized mining; growing long‑term holder supply.

Frequent examples: Saifedean Ammous; Pierre Rochard; proof‑of‑keys style campaigns; full‑node culture and cold storage. Edge Case: Never sell. Treat every altcoin as a scam.

Tagline: “Bitcoin is digital gold.”

Bitcoin Minimalists: Digital Gold and Digital Cash, Tool for Social Transformation

Core belief: Bitcoin should be digital gold for saving and digital cash for spending, with the smallest possible trust surface.

What they prioritize: Save on‑chain with final settlement; spend via noncustodial Lightning where possible; use ecash mints like Cashu for privacy with simple exit to keys; merchant flows that settle to self custody.

What they get right: Align savings and daily use without giving up sovereignty.

Risks and blind spots: Friction and slower distribution; reluctance to adopt UX abstractions; fragmentation across minimal stacks.

Attitude to Lightning: Yes, but strict. Prefer noncustodial or minimally trusted setups. Be cautious with large custodial hubs.

North‑star checks: Users who both save on‑chain and spend via non‑custodial L2; easy withdrawals to keys; high payment success without custodians.

Tagline: “Buy, spend, replace.”

Conclusion

Bitcoin’s culture includes four honest defaults that often talk past one another. Builders expand the surface area, market pragmatists prove everyday utility, monetary purists scale distribution and minimalists protect the base.

Together. they create a productive tension that keeps Bitcoin useful and resilient for real people.

After years of working in a circular economy and writing publicly about these debates, my view is simple. Bitcoin is money. Keep the base layer simple. Save in bitcoin on-chain. Spend in sats when it serves people, as it does in a circular economy. Support Lightning only when the exit to your own keys stays clear and simple. I do not support the “Bitcoin as Database” path, because turning Bitcoin into a general data host distracts from its monetary mission and invites waste, confusion, and reputational harm.

The way forward is practical and principled. Judge ideas by whether they grow self custody, make payments reliable without custodians, deepen liquidity that funds security and education and respect the limits of the base layer. If we hold to that standard, the lanes can complement one another and more people will share in the benefits of a free, neutral and credibly decentralized money.

BM Big Reads are weekly, in-depth articles on some current topic relevant to Bitcoin and Bitcoiners. Opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine. If you have a submission you think fits the model, feel free to reach out at editor[at]bitcoinmagazine.com.

This post A Circular Economy and the Four Archetypes of Bitcoiners first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Fernando Motolese.