Controlled Opposition Assets (to Bitcoin as MoE)

Applying the Controlled Opposition (Safe opposition) concept to finance.

Photo by Artur Shamsutdinov on Unsplash

Controlled Opposition Assets (to Bitcoin as Medium of Exchange)

Many will be familiar with the concept of “Controlled opposition” when it comes to politics.

Controlled opposition refers to an individual that appears to be part of a movement but is actually working against its interests.

So, Controlled Opposition = Safe Opposition.

However, the concept doesn’t apply just to politics - it also applies to finance.

The question this article poses is:

• If self-custody Bitcoin used as a medium of exchange (MoE) is the real threat to the system, what are the main “Controlled opposition” assets?

The Characteristics of Controlled Opposition Assets

If the real threat is sovereign, self-custodied Bitcoin used as money, the main “controlled-opposition” assets are those that:

1. Scratch the same itch (store of value/digital convenience).

2. Live on rails the system controls (KYC, custodian choke-points, halt switches, derivatives plumbing).

3. Pull mind-share and flows away from self-custody.

Let’s look at what functionally acts as “controlled opposition” to Bitcoin-as-money.

1. Spot Bitcoin ETFs / futures ETPs / broker wrappers / treasury companies

   • Why: Satisfies “I want Bitcoin” inside supervised custody (halts, KYC, AP/MM control). Price exposure without keys.

   • Divert: Normalizes paper claims; self-custody becomes niche.

2. Stablecoins & tokenized Treasuries (USD rails)

   • Why: Feels “crypto”, settles fast, but is centrally stoppable and ID-bound; reinforces USD/Treasury primacy.

   • Divert: People do “crypto payments” without touching Bitcoin as MOE (Medium of Exchange).

3. ETH + L2/”Web3 compute” with compliance defaults

   • Why: Captures the “programmable money” mind-share; sequencers/validators and major front-ends are policy-sensitive and OFAC-aligned.

   • Divert: Builders and users focus on “platform tech”, not sovereign money; payments route through KYC endpoints.

4. Gold (esp. via ETFs/vaulted products)

   • Why: Absorbs “hard-money” demand inside custodian oligopolies; no parallel payments rail.

   • Divert: People hedge with gold instead of adopting Bitcoin for spend/settlement.

5. AI mega-caps & the power stack (chips, hyperscalers, data centers)

   • Why: Dominates narrative and capital budgets; policy-blessed growth captures risk capital.

   • Divert: “Future upside” shifts to AI equities instead of monetary sovereignty.

6. Meme-coins/alt-L1 manias on KYC venues

   • Why: Soaks up speculative energy; easy to list/delist; risk stays in pipes with kill-switches.

   • Divert: Attention rotates; Bitcoin’s monetary focal point dilutes.

7. CBDCs & digital-ID money (the end-state substitute)

   • Why: Institutionalizes programmable compliance; gives the convenience Bitcoin can’t match under KYC.

   • Divert: Everyday payments default to CBDC rails; Bitcoin remains “asset class”.

To de-fang Bitcoin-as-money, the Controllers oversupply substitutes that feel “hard”, “digital”, “innovative”, or “yieldy” - but live in supervised pipes.

Gold is by far the most credible Controlled Opposition asset:

• It can satisfy the public’s “store-of-value” impulse without granting a parallel, censorship-resistant payments rail; it trades in surveilled, gate-kept markets (London OTC/COMEX, custodian oligopolies).

• Central banks themselves are heavy buyers, and its price can be influenced via regulated derivatives and custody choke-points.

• This has been and continues to be bullish for Gold. I will expand on this in another article.

What the Controllers know that most Bitcoiners don’t

• permissionless technology ≠ permissionless adoption

This concept is called “The Perimeter Capture Rule”.

It means that you have to watch the perimeter:

• Cloud AUPs (Acceptable Use Policies),

• App stores (Google/Apple),

• Payments (exchanges, banks),

• Policy.

Control at the perimeter beats control at the center (permissionless, global).

If a technology looks uncontrollable, ask: “Can a perimeter actor rate-limit (policy, app stores), de-list (exchanges, banks), de-prioritize (policy, app stores, exchanges, banks)?” If yes, price the center like a tenant.

Many Bitcoiners often say: “We have the best tech, it’s permissionless” and I have to agree, the tech is brilliant.

However, is the tech good enough to compensate for the deficiency in the psychology of the user base?

And when you cut the ideology, the answer here is no.

Technology can’t solve human preference for safety + ease (scale is assumed, I’m not talking about niche Bitcoin communities, I’m talking about a parallel to CBDCs/stablecoins global payments network).

I continue to be very bullish on Bitcoin’s fiat-denominated price long-term. I will expand on this in another article.

Where this goes (3–5y base case)

• Bitcoin becomes managed volatility SoV (paper-heavy), with periodic “clarity spikes”.

• Stablecoins/tokenized deposits dominate retail and B2B payments; CBDCs absorb government disbursements and ID-bound use cases.

• Gold keeps a positive bid as the acceptable pressure valve.

• State-embedded software compounds (PLTR > MSFT > PANW).

• Self-custody BTC remains niche but max convexity if the regime stumbles.

None of this should be considered investment advice.

Subscribe to the free tier:

Share: