[Column] The Parallels Between Odyssey and Bitcoin

This article contains spoilers about the main content and ending of the movie .

Yesterday evening, I watched the movie .

As I left the theater, unexpectedly, Bitcoin came to mind.

On one side is a story from thousands of years ago featuring gods, monsters, kings, and wars. On the other side is a digital currency born on the internet in 2009. Though these two worlds are entirely different, following Odysseus's long journey reveals a strange overlap with the path Bitcoin has taken over the past 15 years.

Odysseus is the cleverest of men. He neutralized the impenetrable walls of Troy with the cunning plan of the Trojan Horse.

Bitcoin did the same.

It did not destroy banks. It did not occupy central banks. It simply created an alternative path that does not require them.

However, is not a story that praises the greatness of the Trojan Horse.

The real story begins after the victory.

Odysseus wanders for another ten years despite winning the war. He encounters monsters, loses companions, and descends into the world of the dead. In the process, he realizes how dangerous the arrogance of believing he can solve everything with his cunning is.

Bitcoin now stands before a similar question.

Is decentralization a new order discovered by humanity, or is it another arrogance in believing that humans can overcome power with technology?

The Trojan Horse of Finance

The global financial crisis of 2008 revealed the uncomfortable truth of modern finance.

What appeared to be a vast and complexly distributed financial system was actually heavily reliant on a few massive financial institutions. When these collapsed, private risks quickly became public issues.

The government intervened. Central banks supplied massive liquidity.

And the following year, Bitcoin emerged.

The question Bitcoin posed was simple.

Is so much trust really needed in money?

You can send value without a bank. You can maintain a ledger without a central authority. The money supply can be governed by predetermined rules rather than the judgment of a few.

Instead of breaking down the walls of traditional finance, it created a way around them.

Bitcoin was the Trojan Horse of finance.

And surprisingly, it survived.

What was once an experiment on the fringes of the internet has now become an asset that the global financial market cannot ignore.

The Trojan Horse has entered the citadel.

But the problem came next.

The Monsters Were Not Only Outside

The initial issues Bitcoin raised were the concentration of power and opacity in traditional finance, as well as moral hazard.

However, as the cryptocurrency industry grew around Bitcoin, something strange happened.

The new finance quickly began to resemble the old finance it criticized.

Excessive leverage emerged.

Tokens of unclear substance were recognized with astronomical values.

Insiders secured quantities under more favorable conditions than ordinary investors. Decision-making power in projects claiming decentralization often concentrated in a few founders and investors.

Exchanges became the new banks.

Those who once said not to trust intermediaries entrusted their assets to massive intermediaries again.

The collapse of FTX dramatically showcased this contradiction.

New technology did not change old human behaviors.

This should be distinguished from the failure of Bitcoin itself. Rather, it reaffirmed Bitcoin's concern that concentrating trust in specific individuals or institutions also concentrates risk.

However, a more uncomfortable lesson remained.

It is much harder to prevent humans from creating new intermediaries than to eliminate intermediaries altogether.

The monsters were not only across the sea.

They were also on the ship.

The Arrogance of Code

Odysseus's weakness was not foolishness.

Rather, it was that he was too clever.

He believed he could solve anything with his cunning. He thought he could ultimately include gods, fate, and the sea in his calculations.

Wisdom turned into arrogance at some point.

A similar belief existed in the world of cryptocurrency.

Code would replace institutions.

Banks would become unnecessary.

Nations would become unimportant.

If rules were embedded in software, human arbitrary judgment would disappear.

'Code is law.'

What initially was a technical principle was at some point accepted as a philosophy of social order.

But reality was not that simple.

Blockchain can make it difficult to manipulate transaction records.

It cannot prevent humans from lying.

Smart contracts can automatically execute promises.

It cannot eliminate greed.

Decentralized technology can distribute power.

It cannot prevent people from creating new power holders.

Technology can change incentives.

It cannot eliminate human nature.

Perhaps this is the first Odyssean question Bitcoin must face.

To what extent is the attempt to solve human problems with technology innovation, and where does it become arrogance?

Bitcoin's Hades

Every hero's narrative has an underworld.

For Odysseus, it was Hades.

For the cryptocurrency market, it was the year 2022.

Terra and Luna collapsed. Major lending firms went bankrupt. FTX collapsed. Countless investors lost money, and figures representing the industry stood trial.

What collapsed then was not just the price.

The belief that if something is technologically new, it must also be economically sound.

The belief that if something is labeled 'decentralized,' it is actually decentralized.

The belief that rising prices are evidence of innovation.

Such illusions also crumbled.

The market that returned from Hades was somewhat different.

Custody became important.

Reserves became important.

Accounting and governance became important.

Regulation also became a subject of discussion on how to design it, rather than an enemy to be eliminated.

And the most paradoxical thing happened.

The traditional finance that Bitcoin tried to circumvent began to accept Bitcoin.

The revolution did not topple the existing system.

It entered into the system.

Odysseus Returned to Ithaca

Odysseus finally returns to Ithaca.

But the return was not a victory.

While he was away, suitors had taken over his home. They squandered his wealth and demanded marriage from his wife Penelope, acting as if the kingdom belonged to them.

Odysseus returned home.

But he had not yet reclaimed his house.

Today's Bitcoin is similar.

Once an experiment on the fringes of the internet, Bitcoin has entered the center of finance.

Institutional investors buy it, corporations hold it, and traditional financial companies create products around it.

Bitcoin seems to have arrived at Ithaca.

But the suitors have come in as well.

The Suitors of Bitcoin

Defining the suitors as Wall Street or the government makes the story simple.

But it is too simplistic.

The real suitors of Bitcoin may be the desires that have accumulated around it.

Excessive leverage.

Speculation that has lost its purpose.

The belief that if prices rise, everything is justified.

Custody concentrated in a few institutions.

The structure that turns Bitcoin into another financial engineering product.

And a culture that cares only about the next target price rather than the reason for Bitcoin's existence.

The suitors of did not love Ithaca.

They were only interested in what they could take from Ithaca.

Bitcoin is no different.

It can fail even if it is not prohibited.

It can fail even if the network does not stop.

It can fail even if the price goes to one million dollars.

This means it can achieve tremendous financial success while philosophically failing.

The Issue Ultimately is Power

The most fundamental question of Bitcoin is not price.

It is power.

Who controls the money?

Who changes the rules?

Can individuals own their assets without intermediaries?

Can they move value without someone’s permission?

And more fundamentally, this:

Does a massive economic system necessarily require a king?

Bitcoin has provided a surprising answer.

It may not need one.

We have long thought of this as Bitcoin's 'answer.'

But perhaps it is not the answer yet.

It is just a question.

Power Returns

Decentralization looks beautiful when drawn as a network.

Countless points are connected to each other.

There is no center.

But human society is not that neat.

If you eliminate banks, exchanges emerge.

If you eliminate exchanges, custodians emerge.

If you eliminate official leaders, unofficial leaders arise.

When authority is decentralized, those with more capital, information, technology, and organizational power regain influence.

Power has a strange habit.

When scattered, it gathers again.

Is Bitcoin an exception?

Mining can become concentrated.

Custody can also become concentrated.

Bankruptcies can become concentrated.

Expertise in development can become concentrated.

Access through institutions can also become concentrated.

Of course, this does not mean that Bitcoin is centralized.

But precisely because of this, we cannot avoid the more difficult question.

Can power really be decentralized?

Or does it scatter for a moment only to gather again in another form?

This question is much harder than validating a single block.

The Final Battle with the Suitors

Odysseus does not compromise with the suitors.

He defeats them.

Then, Bitcoin's next battle is not simply about entering the institutional framework.

It is more important to enter the institutional framework without losing oneself.

Can we avoid the concentration of custodial power even as institutional investors increase?

Can Bitcoin avoid being reduced to collateral for leverage as financial products increase?

Can Bitcoin's fundamental permissionlessness be maintained even as regulations expand?

Can we prevent any one force from dominating the network as massive capital flows in?

This is the battle that Bitcoin fights with its suitors.

It is not about defeating Wall Street.

It is about entering Wall Street without becoming Wall Street.

That is a much harder victory.

And the King Has Departed

After defeating the suitors, the familiar ending of the hero's tale is predictable.

The king returns.

He reclaims the throne.

Order is restored.

But the story goes a step further.

Odysseus accepts that winning does not grant him the right to rule forever. He passes the next era to his son Telemachus and departs.

Bitcoin also has a departed founder.

Satoshi Nakamoto.

Satoshi created Bitcoin and left.

He did not become a CEO.

He did not create a company named after himself.

He did not sit on the throne of Bitcoin.

The throne is empty.

In a typical company, the founder's disappearance is a crisis.

In Bitcoin, however, that absence takes on special meaning.

But Satoshi did not solve the problem of power.

He simply chose not to be that power.

And he left an experiment behind.

Can the Empty Throne Really Be Empty?

Perhaps this is the most important point where The Odyssey meets Bitcoin.

What Odysseus realizes in the end is that he cannot dominate everything with his cunning.

Humans have limits.

Bitcoin faces the same question.

It has eliminated the founder.

It has eliminated the central currency manager.

It has tried to distribute power across the network.

Yet power continues to return.

Through exchanges.

Through custodians.

Through miners.

Through developers.

Through governments.

Through financial institutions.

And above all, through those with more capital.

If Bitcoin can make these forces check each other so that no one becomes king, it would be a tremendous achievement.

Bitcoin does not simply create a new asset; it proves that a vast economic network can sustain itself without a central ruler.

But it could also be the opposite.

Decentralization may not be the final state to reach but rather a process of constantly fighting against the re-concentration of power.

That does not mean Bitcoin has failed.

Rather, it may reflect the true nature of human society.

Odysseus toppled Troy.

He crossed the sea.

He descended to Hades.

He returned to Ithaca.

He defeated the suitors.

But the most important lesson from his long journey was not that humans can conquer everything.

No matter how clever a human is, they ultimately face their limits.

Bitcoin has transcended the walls of finance.

It has come to Ithaca after passing through countless monsters.

Now, a more difficult question remains.

Can the empty throne really remain empty until the end?

If not, Bitcoin's most beautiful ideal may also be its greatest hubris.

The belief that a king is unnecessary.

This content is provided for general informational purposes only and doesn't constitute financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Any events, rewards, online promotions, or related information mentioned herein should not be considered a recommendation, solicitation, or invitation to purchase, sell, trade, or otherwise deal in any crypto assets. Crypto assets are highly volatile and may result in loss. The availability of WEEX services, products, and related events may vary by region. You are responsible for ensuring that your participation is in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations.