In the crypto world, few groups are as polarizing as Bitcoin maximalists. They categorically reject altcoins like Ethereum, XRP, or Solana. For many investors, Bitcoin is primarily an asset class that has outperformed traditional investments such as stocks, real estate, or gold in recent years. But for a growing community of believers, Bitcoin has long been more than a high-yield asset: it is the foundation of a new monetary order.
Bitcoin maximalists view BTC as the only true form of money — and because of that, they often find themselves at the center of criticism. Their uncompromising rejection of alternative crypto projects is considered divisive by some, and even harmful to the industry. This raises questions: What lies behind the phenomenon of Bitcoin maximalism, and why is it worth taking a closer look?
Vitalik Buterin, the creator of the term “Bitcoin maximalism”
Anyone who studies the history of Bitcoin maximalism quickly encounters a striking fact: Vitalik Buterin — the leading figure of the Ethereum community — was one of the first to describe this stance in detail, and he did so quite critically.
In a blog post on the Ethereum Foundation’s website in November 2014, Buterin defined Bitcoin maximalism as “the idea that an environment with multiple competing cryptocurrencies is undesirable, that launching another coin is wrong, and that it is both justified and inevitable that Bitcoin will achieve a monopoly position in the crypto scene.”
Only a few months earlier, he had launched Ethereum’s ICO. Buterin noted that maximalism is different from simply wanting to strengthen Bitcoin. It is, he argued, “an attitude that says building on Bitcoin is the only correct way and that everything else is immoral.”
Today, many BTC holders call themselves Bitcoin maximalists, but the interpretation of the term varies widely and often diverges from this narrow definition.
From an economic perspective, a Bitcoin maximalist may be someone who believes in future hyperbitcoinization — the idea that Bitcoin will eventually replace all other forms of money, whether fiat currencies, gold, or altcoins. This belief doesn’t necessarily require viewing other crypto projects as morally wrong.
A more philosophical interpretation focuses on individual freedom and resistance to state intervention and central banking. In this sense, Bitcoin is seen as a tool of self-determination, offering financial sovereignty and protecting people from the consequences of government-controlled money.
Bitcoin maximalism can also be understood in a purely financial way: in this view, a maximalist is simply someone who allocates most of their wealth to Bitcoin rather than diversifying across asset classes. The core belief here is that digital gold will outperform all alternatives in the coming years.
This leads to a central issue in the debate about whether maximalists benefit or harm the crypto community: there is no single definition. Depending on personal interpretation, the term can mean very different things.
What really motivates Bitcoin maximalists
Although the tone on social media can often be harsh — maximalists often mock altcoins as “sh*tcoins” — their underlying motivation is frequently positive.
In an interview, Josef Tětek, one of the best-known figures in the Czech Bitcoin community, explains: “[Altcoins] are created out of nothing. Many crypto projects are strongly centralized through the foundations or companies behind them, which can easily change algorithms.” Ethereum, he argues, is a good example, since its monetary policy has changed significantly over the years.
Tětek distinguishes between public fiat like the US dollar and private fiat like Ether, XRP, or Solana. He emphasizes: “Bitcoin is different because it has no central leadership and its monetary policy is practically impossible to change.”
For him and many other Bitcoin maximalists, a major motivation is protecting newcomers from costly mistakes. Whether they themselves lost money trading altcoins, fell victim to scammers, or failed at market-timing strategies with Bitcoin in earlier years, many BTC maxis want to share their experiences so others don’t repeat the same painful errors.
Countless crypto projects have launched with big promises over the past decade only to disappear shortly after. Dubious founders often exploited inexperienced retail investors to enrich themselves
Dominik Stroukal: Why even moderates see a role for “hardcore maxis”
Dr. Dominik Stroukal, another prominent figure in Prague’s Bitcoin scene, also identifies as a Bitcoin maximalist. However, he doesn’t attack other coins because he simply doesn’t pay much attention to them. Still, he recognizes a role for uncompromising maximalists and tells BTC-ECHO:
“There need to be kind people who explain ideas slowly and patiently — but you also need those who verbally slap you in the face, like Michael Saylor does.”
Michael Saylor, whose company Strategy now holds nearly 650,000 BTC, once said in a podcast:
“It takes about 10 hours and you become a trader.
100 hours and you become an investor.
1000 hours and you become a maximalist who believes [Bitcoin] is a tool of economic empowerment — a moral imperative for 8 billion people.”
His passionate arguments are fueled not only by economic expectations but also by the conviction that Bitcoin can elevate human civilization and help the world’s poorest.
“Much of the criticism and hostility toward Bitcoin comes from people who have the luxury of living within a stable financial system,” says human rights activist Alex Gladstein, another strong Bitcoin advocate.
So are maximalists ultimately idealistic freedom advocates fighting for financial justice?
Mainstream adoption — a double-edged sword for Bitcoin purists
As more people save in Bitcoin or use it as a means of payment, the original ideals of the BTC community are increasingly overshadowed. Instead of securing their private keys on a hardware wallet, many investors now rely on Bitcoin ETFs — trusting a third party.
As large banks begin offering Bitcoin directly through wealth management services, the share of custodied coins is likely to rise even further. For some long-time Bitcoiners, this feels like their years of advocacy have been for nothing.
But neither maximalism nor self-custody is the right choice for everyone. Freedom requires responsibility, and financial sovereignty always comes with risks. Even perpetual bull Michael Saylor admits that not every Bitcoin user should self-custody. After criticism from the community, he clarified:
“I support self-custody for those who are willing and able to do it.”
While the percentage of users who identify as maximalists may decline as adoption grows, their absolute number continues to increase. What distinguishes this hardcore core of the Bitcoin community: while many lose interest during bear markets, they persist — trying to orange-pill as many people as possible.
Eight years after his original criticism, even Vitalik Buterin took a more nuanced view in a later essay:
“Maximalism is not simply pro-Bitcoin for its own sake; it is a recognition that most other cryptocurrencies are scams, and a culture of intolerance is unavoidable and necessary to protect newcomers.”
He adds that even “toxic maxis” play a role because they preserve Bitcoin’s identity and, in doing so, may even influence the mainstream.
Their most important financial principle is one that any crypto beginner can easily adopt:
“Bitcoin. Buy and hold.”
Due to this striking simplicity, perhaps we should begin speaking not of Bitcoin maximalism, but of a lived Bitcoin minimalism.
