Bitcoin vs. "Crypto"

Walk into any discussion about Bitcoin and someone will inevitably lump it in with "crypto." Coinbase lists thousands of "cryptocurrencies." The media talks about the "crypto market." Politicians propose "crypto regulations."

This framing misses something fundamental: Bitcoin is different from everything else in the category. Not just first, not just biggest—categorically different.

The Thousand Imitators

After Bitcoin launched in 2009, thousands of alternatives appeared. Some were genuine experiments. Most were cash grabs. A few were outright scams.

They share some surface features with Bitcoin—they're digital, they use cryptography, they have tokens. But the similarities end there.

Here's what most "cryptocurrencies" have that Bitcoin doesn't:

• A founder or founding team who holds a large percentage of the supply
• A foundation or company that controls development and marketing
• Pre-mines or ICOs where insiders got tokens before the public
• The ability to change the rules when it benefits the insiders
• A "use case" that requires you to trust the project

Bitcoin has none of these. Satoshi disappeared. There's no Bitcoin company. No pre-mine (Satoshi mined early blocks using the same public software anyone could run). The rules haven't changed in any fundamental way since launch. And Bitcoin's use case—money—doesn't require trusting any project.

The Decentralization Spectrum

The word "decentralized" gets thrown around carelessly. Most projects aren't decentralized—they're distributed, which isn't the same thing.

Distributed means the software runs on multiple computers. Decentralized means no one controls it.

Ethereum has a foundation, a lead developer, and has changed its monetary policy multiple times. Solana has gone offline multiple times and can be controlled by a small number of validators. Ripple (XRP) is controlled by a company that owns most of the tokens.

Bitcoin has:

• No foundation
• No CEO
• No marketing budget
• No "official" website
• No ability to change the supply or core rules

Can you name another cryptocurrency where that's true?

Why Does This Matter?

If you're using cryptocurrency to speculate, maybe it doesn't matter much. Lots of tokens have gone up (and down) in price.

But if you're using it as money—as a store of value over time—decentralization is everything.

Here's why: anything controlled by a small group can be changed by that group. When the incentives align, they will change it. Maybe they'll print more tokens. Maybe they'll reverse transactions. Maybe they'll comply with a government order to freeze accounts.

Bitcoin can't do any of those things. Not "won't"—can't. The architecture makes it impossible. That's the difference between a token and money.

The Security Gap

Bitcoin's network has been running continuously since 2009. It has never been hacked. It has processed over $1 trillion in transactions without a single invalid transaction entering the ledger.

The security comes from:

• The hash rate (computational power securing the network)
• The node distribution (thousands of independent validators)
• The time since launch (15+ years of battle testing)
• The simplicity of the protocol (less attack surface)

Other cryptocurrencies have been hacked, rolled back, and manipulated repeatedly. Ethereum famously reversed its blockchain after a hack in 2016 (the DAO incident). That might sound like a good thing—recovering stolen funds—but it proved that Ethereum's history could be rewritten when enough insiders agreed.

Bitcoin's history cannot be rewritten. That's not a feature they're working toward. It's a feature they abandoned the moment they didn't need it.

"But Ethereum Is More Advanced"

This is a common claim. Ethereum has smart contracts. Bitcoin doesn't (mostly). Doesn't that make Ethereum better?

It depends on what you're trying to do.

If you want programmable tokens, NFTs, DeFi applications—Ethereum and its competitors offer those. They're interesting experiments. Some might even be useful.

But if you want money—something to save in, something that will hold its value, something that won't change the rules on you—Bitcoin is the only serious option.

Money doesn't need to be complicated. In fact, it shouldn't be. The more complex a monetary system, the more ways it can break or be manipulated. Bitcoin's simplicity is a feature.

The "Bitcoin Maximalist" Position

People who focus exclusively on Bitcoin are sometimes called "maximalists," often as a pejorative. Here's the logic behind the position:

1. Money has network effects (the more people use it, the more useful it is)
2. Network effects tend toward one winner
3. Bitcoin has the strongest network effects, security, and decentralization
4. Therefore, Bitcoin will likely absorb the monetary premium of all other cryptos
5. Holding other cryptos is betting against network effects

You don't have to agree with this position. But you should understand it, because it explains why so many people who understand the technology deeply focus exclusively on Bitcoin.

A Note on "Bitcoin Dominance"

The media often reports "Bitcoin dominance"—Bitcoin's share of total cryptocurrency market cap. When dominance falls, they report it as Bitcoin "losing ground" to competitors.

This framing is misleading. Market cap is a noisy metric (low-liquidity tokens can have absurd "market caps" that would evaporate if anyone tried to sell). More importantly, it treats all cryptocurrencies as competing in the same category, which they're not.

Bitcoin is competing to be money. Most other cryptocurrencies are competing to be... something else. Comparing their market caps is like comparing the market cap of gold to the market cap of airline miles.