A recurring pattern I see in Bitcoin discussions is the conflation of the protocol with the market built around it.

Bitcoin is a monetary protocol.
TradFi exchanges, market makers, ETFs, custodians, oracles, and fiat on-ramps are optional market infrastructure layered on top of it.

When people critique Bitcoin by pointing to exchange failures, liquidity providers, pricing oracles, or custodial risk, they are not critiquing Bitcoin.
They are critiquing fiat-era intermediaries interacting with Bitcoin.

That distinction matters.

Within the protocol:
• No miner can censor a valid transaction
• No market maker can change the rules
• No exchange can prevent settlement between self-custodied users
• No institution controls issuance or supply
• No authority can override consensus

Bitcoin does not eliminate intermediaries by force.
It makes them optional by design.

The confusion arises when people treat:
• price discovery as governance
• custody as control
• liquidity as authority
• markets as protocol

That framing imports TradFi assumptions into a system that was explicitly designed to remove them.

My aim has always been to evaluate Bitcoin on its own terms — at the protocol layer — not through the lens of fiat market behaviour built around it. When you separate those layers, most of the common criticisms collapse.

Bitcoin is not perfect.
But it is precise.

And precision is what most debates are missing.

#Bitcoin #FiatMoney #TradFi