“He who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities” — Voltaire

Im a realist.

I fully know that despite the upward progression of both Bitcoin and Decred in their respective lifelines, both need 3 vital criteria in order to continue this upward progression (and adoption) as hard, sound store-of-value money mechanisms.

Hashpower

A market

Narrative

As both hashpower and market continues to grow for both protocols, it should be stated thus that the easiest backdoor of attack will underlyingly be narrative.

We are watching this unfold even now, and have been for sometime now.

Its what drives most FUD that enters the psyche of the average market participant or short term hodler.

The defining difference that I want to point out about narrative is that , up until now, the FUD narrative has come primarily from different financial media outlets and it has been overwhelmingly about crypto itself, the protocols, etc etc.

This FUD did its respective damage, creating an 18 month bear market where we saw Bitcoin fall by 83+/-% , Decred by 88+/-%.

And then something happened.

There was a market reversal.

Bear turned to Bull. Bitcoin , Decred, and other protocols began to accumulate value once again.

In like manner, a narrative reversal began to supercede the former. The FUD narrative that has become the norm of recent is one that targets the individual user of Bitcoin and other crypto.

The source has also changed.

Now rather than simple financial outlets that viewed crypto as a threat, we see the narrative coming from State controlled institutions as well as Oligarchy.

In short time, we have devolved from banks attacking sound financial protocols to the centralized State attacking sound financial protocol users, or atleast their character.

We’ve seen them denounced as drug dealers, as tax evaders, as individuals who participate in criminal activity and who support terrorism. They have been denounced as individuals with the narrative that “their push for decentralized finance” is driven by an underlying fact they “have something to hide”.

Spot the character assasination narrative being pushed?

Its no longer about the protocols, its about the users and the distrust that must be birthed about them. This is quite simply why narrative is currently the easiest backdoor of attack. There is no imminent need to attack hashpower or the market when you can simply attack the individual that creates both.

Its a game theory tactic, used in both political and a-political spectrums alike.

In retrospect, one must look at the alternate face of the coin. Just as negative narrative has become part of the Machiavellian game that has encompassed money, banks, governments, crypto, and society as a whole, so has the positive narrative that has followed Bitcoin and a host of other crypto projects.

Up until now, Bitcoin has had a root story of being a rebellious form of store of value with the potential to usher in financial stability for a world that is facing financial uncertainty.

This is why the narrative attack is systematic.

Bitcoin and crypto have become a ‘threat’ against Rome, against Caesar, against the State.

Thus a narrative vs. narrative war ensues.

The Narrative of Decred

“Every successful institution, from a marriage to a superhero to a firm to a nation, needs an origin story.” — Ben Hunt, Epsilon Theory

With all this perceptional story telling going on before us, we must now ask ourselves ‘what is the narrative of Decred?’

We know the origin story:

A handful of Bitcoin devs begin searching to create multiple implementations of Bitcoin. The devs paths cross that of a Monero dev whose ideas lead to a more sound governance model that leads to coin holders having sovereign voice in the direction of the protocol.

Other Bitcoin core team see this as a threat and make it known to the devs who are working on this implementation. The implementation team, taken back by the hostility of the core team, sense the “Oligarchy governance control” the Bitcoin devs maintained, and eventually opt to turn time and energy of their new governance model into its own implemented project which would later be known as Decred [ Decrentalized Credits ].

Now this is merely the cliffnotes to the Genesis of the Decred narrative; of how it came to form. Since then, Chapter 1.0 has been penned in the form Decred’s infancy years. It has consisted of it’s genesis block, an airdrop, its initial development, and its early adoption by the market.

Chapter 2.0 is currently being written out. It has thus far consisted of larger cultivation in governance integration, of Politeia implementation, the introduction of privacy, as well as growth in sovereign individual use. As this chapter of the narrative continues to be penned , it should be noted that a growing aspect of the story will in oft consist of a duality with its precursor, Bitcoin.

The very governing users and stakers of [Decentralized Credits] decide what the next narrative of the protocol will encompass. The ticket holders wave the pen. The most significant and compelling aspect of the Decred narrative lies in the fact that it is ‘adaptable’. It can be or become what its governing peoples decide it should be. Sovereign voices not only uphold this decision, but applaud it.

So while Rome, Caesar, and the State may continue to spread narratives of fallacy and dissimulation about individuals who partake in the Decred protocol ecosystem, these very individuals will continue to press their own narrative of sovereignty, individual and public rights, and sound governance.

To loosely paraphrase writing analyst Lisa Cron, “Narrative, as it turns out, was crucial to our evolution — more so than opposable thumbs. Opposable thumbs let us hang on; narrative told us what to hang on to.”

May our best narrative evolve.

Disclaimer: The preceding is not intended as investment advice but rather blockchain philosophy and monetary theory.

This article is open source, uncopyrighted, free to use for public domain as anyone may see fit. Attribution, although appreciated, is not required.