Rugged Individulism, Selective Socialism
Today I saw a post from Brian Armstrong, CEO of Coinbase, that began with:
We need more rugged individualism, not less.
I understood what he meant in theory. Rugged individualism is often framed as self-reliance, personal responsibility, and success earned through effort. But in reality, that idea only works for certain individuals in this country. Merit-based economics, as it’s commonly described, isn’t truly real here.
The smartest, most creative, and hardest-working people are not always the ones who are rewarded. Access to capital, networks, education, stability, and even sheer luck often matter more than ability or effort alone. Success is less about individual grit and more about the systems and support structures a person is born into—or gains access to. Ignoring that reality turns “rugged individualism” from an ideal into a myth—one that overlooks how uneven the playing field actually is.
If America were truly merit-based—if it were really just about the numbers—Ivy League campuses would look a lot different.
For decades, Asian students—particularly those from Indian, Chinese, and Korean backgrounds—consistently scored the highest on the SAT. Nigerian-Americans are among the most educated immigrant groups in the country. Second-generation Nigerians have nearly 250% greater odds of achieving higher education than their white peers.
But it took a Supreme Court case to start shifting the numbers. Before the 2023 SFFA ruling, Asian students were routinely rated lower on subjective “personality” metrics—metrics that conveniently kept their enrollment capped while their test scores kept climbing. Now, post-ruling, Asian enrollment at Harvard has hit 41%.
That’s not meritocracy working. That’s meritocracy being sued into existence.
And even now, look at what hasn’t changed: these schools still pull disproportionately from the top 1% of the income bracket. The gatekeeping just shifted forms—from race to class, from explicit caps to legacy admits and donor kids.
Merit was never the criteria. It was always the excuse.
And this isn’t just frustration talking. It’s a pattern.
As industries mature, they professionalize. They create credentialing systems. They build processes. And somewhere along the way, those systems start favoring certain backgrounds and networks over demonstrated capability. The people doing the evaluating weren’t always the ones who built anything. They just learned how to fit into structures that already existed.
So you end up with a strange inversion: the ones who created value from nothing now have to prove themselves to people who never had to. The builders get filtered out by the gatekeepers. And the gatekeepers? They keep their seats.
I’ll give you a short anecdotal tale.
A Personal Example
I’ve been in the Bitcoin industry since 2012. I built one of the first wallets in the Bitcoin space, Pheeva. At one point, it was the only wallet you could download on an iOS device. But I didn’t just build the iOS version—I also built the Android and web versions.
We were the first wallet to allow users to spend Bitcoin in-wallet to buy gift cards that could be used immediately. We even made what I still believe is the best Bitcoin commercial. 🙂
Despite all of that, we couldn’t get our wallet listed on bitcoin.org.
Later, I basically wrote the book on open trade tokenization: Global Trade Review – Guide to Blockchain for Trade Finance (Part 1)
I worked with companies like JPMorgan, Wells Fargo, and SAP to implement pilots. One of my favorite investors once came up to me at a conference, after the business failed and said:
“Lamar, you were just a little too early.”
I taught classes and wrote a book with scholar Jimmy Song. Contributed to open-source projects with Chain Code in Barcelona, Spain.
I built some of the largest Bitcoin-focused economic groups on Facebook, 24k and Clubhouse, 165k. I’ve spoken at major financial conferences around the world. I even taught Bitcoin in the Marcy Projects for Jack Dorsey and Jay-Z.
The “Merit” Test
Over time, members of my communities would tell me they wanted to work in the industry—but couldn’t even get an interview. So I decided to test the system myself.
I applied for a role as a Developer Community Liaison.
Given my background, I assumed I had enough “merit” to at least get a conversation.
Here were the qualifications:
Applicants should have a deep technical understanding of Bitcoin and be comfortable engaging on Bitcoin topics and channels such as bitcoin-dev or lightning-dev email lists, local BitDevs, or “wizards” channels like IRC #bitcoin-wizards.
Applicants should be able to identify at least three projects worth working on, explain why they benefit Bitcoin, and how their involvement would improve them.
Strong people skills are required. Many projects involve attaining developer consensus across Bitcoin Core, P2P policy, and Lightning. This requires ego-free collaboration, patience, persistence, and openness to feedback.
I read this and thought: this fits me perfectly. I applied.
I waited a few days. Then I received this response:
Thank you for taking the time to consider the [role @ company]. Unfortunately, we have decided to move forward with other candidates whose skills more closely align with this position.
We wish you the very best in your job search and future adventures.
Best, [Nice young woman]
I didn’t even make it past the initial evaluation.
The Reality
That’s when it hit me: the industry that asks me to speak all the time is not necessarily the same industry that wants me to work within it.
Every business I’ve operated in Bitcoin has been my own. Most were bootstrapped. One was venture-funded. Even that venture-funded company was ultimately sabotaged by an investor and a salesperson on my own team.
It’s been a ride. And Bitcoin is still the same freedom technology that excited me in the beginning. It still offers an alternative to a financial system that isn’t explicitly merit-based.
But it does not separate you from an industry that is just as crony-driven as America the Beautiful.
I’ve made many associates in this space over time. But after Trump won his second term, some of those associates stopped responding. No explanation. No heads-up. Just distance.
What Bitcoin Actually Needs
In this industry, I’ve been the poster child for rugged individualism. I came in driven by internal beliefs about freedom and justice. I put code to screen. I built the future.
But I don’t feel like we need more individualism.
I feel like we need more community.
Bitcoin doesn’t suffer from a lack of individual initiative. It suffers from a lack of honest, inclusive, and transparent community building. “Merit-based” has become an excuse to decide which merit is acceptable on any given day. The goalposts move constantly.
America isn’t truly individualist—it’s crony-collectivist, selective about who gets included. The Bitcoin industry, despite its underlying ideals, hasn’t escaped that reality.
Even Brian Armstrong didn’t build Coinbase alone. He knows that.
I agree with him on decentralization. I agree with him on smaller government intervention.
But pretending that we build this space alone—without networks, support, collaboration, and community—is dishonest.
At best, it’s naïve. At worst, it’s manipulative.
Bitcoin deserves better than recycled myths. It deserves a community willing to live up to its principles—not just talk about them. Just as nodes in the Bitcoin blockchain are separate and can validate for themselves, they still need the other nodes and miners to make this miraculous invention work.
But hey what do I know. I’m just a “SINGLE” individual voice crying out on the big ol’ internet.
Community is Common Unity
Write a comment