I'm 27. I've spent three years afraid to write this post.
Editorial update, October 11, 2026: The original title was "Bitcoin Is A Cult (And I Can Prove It)." This is a dated criticism of maximalist incentives and the behaviors described here, not proof about every holder or a clinical classification. Steven Hassan's BITE framework is the source for the analogy, not an independent assessment of these communities.
Not because I did not believe the criticism. Because I worried about the reactions I had seen: Twitter pile-ons and "have fun staying poor" responses.
I also feared being permanently labeled as a hater who "doesn't understand Bitcoin."
But "Own or Be Owned" includes owning your mind. So here we are.
The Narrative Collapse
I was comparing gold at a high with Bitcoin below a recent peak when I wrote this. I have not supplied the exact price series, peak date or timestamp for the original 40% figure. When I raised the comparison with maximalists, one response was: "Bitcoin is better than gold because it's limited."
Gold is also limited. Gold is also portable. Gold never needed a power grid.
That comparison did not persuade me of the "digital gold" argument. A price drawdown alone does not disprove an investment thesis; my criticism is of claims that cannot be questioned.
What worried me was watching an argument change without an account of what would falsify it.
It's about "adoption." It's about "institutions." It's about "the next cycle." Every variation points the same direction: "buy more."
How I Know This
I'm going to use Dr. Steven Hassan's BITE Model. Hassan spent decades studying cults - the BITE acronym stands for Behavior, Information, Thought, and Emotional control.
I am using that framework as an interpretive analogy for the behavior I describe, not as a survey or a clinical diagnosis of Bitcoin holders.
Let me walk through it.
Behavior Control.
Bitcoin maximalists have scripts. "Stack sats." "Go 100% in." "Never sell." "HODL" isn't a strategy - it's a command disguised as a meme.
In the circles I describe, selling could be called "paper hands," weakness or losing. That kind of shaming can make changing your mind socially costly; it does not describe every Bitcoin community.
I've watched people tell me they sold Bitcoin and immediately get shamed by their friend groups. That's behavioral isolation. That's cult behavior.
Information Control.
Mainstream economists? Shills. Financial advisors? Threatened by the revolution. Bloomberg? FUD.
The pattern I object to is treating contrary information as enemy propaganda while trusting only an in-group. Bitcoin ownership alone does not establish that behavior.
You're living in an information silo the size of El Salvador.
When every outside perspective is filtered through "they don't understand," you've created an unfalsifiable system. They either understand Bitcoin or they're ignorant. There's no third option.
Thought Control.
The arguments I was encountering felt unfalsifiable: I could not tell what observation would change them.
Price goes up? "It was the right call."
Price goes down? "They're accumulating." Bad regulation? "Test of conviction." Good regulation? "Adoption accelerating." Up down left right—every outcome confirms the thesis.
That's not investing. That's religion.
Emotional Control.
"Have fun staying poor" isn't trash talk. It's psychological manipulation.
It's shame. It's painting non-belief as stupidity, cowardice, or being left behind. Missing out on Bitcoin is reframed as the greatest mistake of your life.
Now you're emotionally invested in being right. Doubt becomes anxiety. Not buying becomes regret you haven't felt yet.
The Financial Engine
Strategy, the company associated with Michael Saylor, reported holding 714,644 Bitcoin as of February 8, 2026. Those are corporate holdings, not Saylor's personal wallet. They are about 3.4% of Bitcoin's 21-million maximum supply, not 3.4% of the coins already in existence.
Editorial update, October 11, 2026: Primary record: Strategy's February 9, 2026 disclosure. 714,644 ÷ 21,000,000 is approximately 3.40%. This verifies the reported corporate holding and arithmetic, not personal net worth, motives or a forecast of Bitcoin returns.
A person or company with a large Bitcoin exposure may benefit from a price increase. That incentive is relevant when evaluating promotion; it does not establish how one new buyer changes Saylor's personal net worth.
An incentive to favor an asset is not, by itself, proof that a speaker is dishonest or merely funding a position.
The same question is worth asking of any promoter: what do they hold, what do they disclose, and how might they benefit? This essay does not establish the holdings of every major influencer.
It's not a pyramid scheme technically. But the structure rewards the people at the top for recruiting the people at the bottom.
If I had a very large exposure, I would want readers to know that before weighing my argument. A technically true statement could still leave out an important conflict of interest.
That's not a conspiracy. That's just aligned incentives.
Why I'm Writing This
I'm writing this because I'm watching young developers get recruited into this. Not recruited into an investment. Into a belief system.
I watch engineers on Twitter get told that real freedom means going 100% Bitcoin and rejecting fiat entirely. That working for a company is slavery unless you're being paid in sats. That owning a home or a business is copper-brained thinking.
These are brilliant people. And they're being told that doubt is weakness.
I watch them stop reading about financial diversification. Stop thinking about tax-advantaged accounts. Stop questioning because questioning gets you labeled as not understanding the vision.
That's not freedom. That's a cage made of certainty.
The certainty is what troubles me. Feeling liberated by a community does not prove that someone has surrendered their ability to think.
What I Actually Believe
I don't think Bitcoin is worthless. I think it's an interesting asset with real technical properties and real believers. That's not nothing.
But I think the maximalist movement around Bitcoin has become cult behavior. I think the marketing has outpaced the fundamentals.
I think enormous leverage and psychological manipulation are being used to convince young people that this is their only path to freedom.
And I think freedom that requires you to believe unfalsifiable things and shame people who disagree isn't freedom at all.
The hardest part of owning yourself? Being willing to change your mind when you're wrong. Being willing to admit doubt. Being willing to disagree with your community.
That's the test. That's what separates someone who thinks for themselves from someone who just found a louder echo chamber.
The Fear
I am publishing this knowing some people may react angrily. Disagreement or criticism alone would not prove my argument about emotional control.
But here's what I know: I sleep well. My businesses provided value people wanted. My money is diversified. I'm not dependent on the price of any one asset to feel like I'm winning.
That's not because I'm smarter than Bitcoin maximalists. It's because I decided early that my identity wasn't allowed to be fused with my portfolio.
And I hope some of you reading this who've felt that cognitive dissonance—that voice inside saying "wait, this doesn't add up"—I hope you listen to it.
Your mind is the only asset you're actually born with. Everything else is infrastructure.