Anonymous, Pseudonymous, and the KYC Economy

The internet used to be a pretty laid-back place where you could be mostly pseudonymous. Even site owners didn’t really know who you were, letting you post and engage without digging into your identity. Then social media came along and flipped the script. Just look at Facebook, where using fake names or even nicknames is a no-go. You can’t have an account without your full legal name being out there for everyone to see. Now it feels like we’re stepping into a new age where websites demand your full legal identity just to be able to access their content. Take Twitter, for example. If you’re using their app on mobile, you might be prompted to do a face scan or else you can't use any features. Discord tried to roll out something similar too. Even AliExpress has started asking for a face scan to verify your age if you want to buy anything marked for 18+. It’s like we’re entering a whole new world of internet interaction. This shift seems to be great for advertisers. In these tightly controlled spaces where everyone’s identity is confirmed, they can prove to their clients that they’re reaching KYC customers who are likely real people, not just bots. Some big platforms are even pushing hard for stricter age checks and KYC on regular sites, and it looks like a few others are jumping on that bandwagon willingly. So, how are we supposed to fight back against this? In the West, we’re not really used to living in a shadow economy, unlike some countries that have had to adapt to that lifestyle for years. Like in Lebanon, where cash is king, people use informal exchange rates, pay cash for better deals, and even rely on other currencies and crypto.

Because the internet today is not only a repository of information, but also a hub for business agreements and deals. The advent of cryptocurrencies has disrupted the internet landscape, creating a real-world environment where people can transact like in the real world, bypassing some of the formal financial regulations that should be in place. Since the debut of the first CDBC, we should have seen a universal government's gradual desire to regulate everything in every sector.

Well, I just found out about this, lol. But considering how little I use it, I don't care if they find out and ban me. We'll do what we can, but since most people are not going to care about this, we're screwed. You're lumping all Americans together, but a young person living in New York is not the same as an old farmer in Montana. In some U.S. states, cash is used more than in some European countries. Cash isn't going to be banned; it's just that, with limits on cash payments, inflation, and the fact that people are increasingly paying with electronic methods for convenience, its use will continue to decline until it disappears.

This trend means control over the finances of citizens. That is, the government and corporate authorities want to control the expenses and income of citizens through an identification mechanism that is already compulsory. What does this mean? It means depriving money of its important properties of interchangeability and anonymity. However, this is happening in a different way, through the control of end consumers rather than direct restrictions. Over time, money as we know it will completely disappear, and it will be replaced by conditional units that are fully controlled by someone with power over you. You won't be able to buy what you want, but only what is allowed for you. In general, this upcoming social structure is called techno-fascism.

Bitcoin is the world's first immutable, fair, and decentralized economic instrument. The financial system that has emerged has never encountered anything like this. That's why they're terrified of losing control over fees, deposit management, and capital. Governments have also realized that people may indeed have personal financial boundaries. And so they've all united in an effort to control crypto through KYC. Unfortunately, this is now a reality, even if it's not yet final. But the overall concept of Bitcoin's decentralization remains unshakable.