Why Bitcoin needs to return to its cypherpunk roots: Mumtaz

For Mert Mumtaz, software engineer and CEO of Helius—an infrastructure platform for developers in Solana—bitcoin and the cryptocurrency ecosystem have lost touch with their original essence. As he warns, the sector needs to «be cypherpunk again», recover the ideals of freedom and autonomy that inspired Satoshi Nakamoto and gave rise to the industry.

In a recent reflection, Mumtaz distinguishes three classes of cryptoassets: commercial, casino and cypherpunk. Each one embodies a different way of conceiving and applying technology, although, as he notes, only one of them preserves the founding spirit that gave rise to the industry.

The specialist maintains that the first category is made up of stablecoins, tokens backed by real-world assets (RWA) and solutions adopted by financial institutions.

“These cryptocurrencies use technology to increase the efficiency of finance: faster payments, instant settlements and a universal API for money,” explains Mumtaz.

Although the businessman recognizes that of this group positive developments have emergedwarns that it also implies moving away from the ideals that gave rise to the industry. “There are many relatively invisible critical control points that most are not yet aware of,” he notes. Among them, he cites the fact that stablecoins can be frozen or suffer censorship.

The second block, defined by Mert himself as “casino cryptos”, is dominated by speculative projects and regulatory arbitrage strategies. Mumtaz believes it is an environment “too wild for institutions, but it also does not align with the original ideals of crypto.”

In the words of the CEO of Helius, These types of initiatives are motivated mainly by economic interestmore than by a technological or ideological vision.

«Most of those involved here are just looking to make money. I have nothing against that as long as it doesn’t harm others, but it’s not something that interests me personally,» he says.

The flame that ignited the crypto industry

As the last group, Mumtaz the third class stands out of cryptoassets: the “cryptocypunk”, those who, in their opinion, are almost extinct. However, it was the spark that gave rise to the entire movement from the creation of Satoshi Nakamoto.

Satoshi was a cypherpunk. Cypherpunks use cryptography and code to build systems of freedom: freedom from state excess, freedom of expression, and the right to transact.

Mert Mumtaz, CEO of Helius

Mumtaz regrets that this ideal has been distorted and confused with criminal behavior, such as illicit activities on the darknet, which «only degrade the principles of freedom for a false hit of virtual dopamine.»

The CEO believes that media attention and capital have been concentrated on the first two classes, leaving cypherpunks in the background. Even so, he insists that an industry without this component is distorted.

He points out, thereforeto, that the underlying problem does not lie in the technology, but in the way in which its purpose has been communicated: «It has been a question of education and how the story is told.»

Even so, he maintains an optimistic vision. «Let’s fix this and make ‘crypto’ cypherpunk again,» he promises. According to Mumtaz, that spirit is already present in projects like Zcash and, soon, it will “turn on again throughout the ecosystem.”

He also added that “most cryptocurrency networks They have concentrated heavily on the first two categoriesso they have neglected the cypherpunk aspect. Although he recognizes that he cannot influence other projects, he assures that he can generate changes in Solana: «We will make Solana much more cypherpunk from now on.»

This is all part of a debate about the direction of bitcoin that illustrates the tension between its original spirit and current reality of the market.

As reported by NoticiasVE, analysts such as Scott Melker have pointed out that some of the first whales, who acquired BTC with a libertarian vision and financial sovereignty, have begun to sell or transfer their positions. Such a fact raises concerns about whether the asset has been partly co-opted by those it originally sought to challenge.