Why do Bitcoin Maxis reject ICOs: the conflict between sovereignty and corporate dominance

Recently, we have observed a renewed interest in the debate around Bitcoin maximalism, although this time from a different perspective. Instead of focusing on protocol purity, leaders in the crypto space are pointing to the growing threat from tech giants who systematically restrict user freedom. Digital platforms are reaching larger scales and higher sophistication, while simultaneously optimizing revenue by tightening control over data and user behaviors. This phenomenon has reignited a fundamental discussion: what is true digital sovereignty and how can it be defended?

The problem lies in the business model, not technology

Critics note that power on the internet is no longer solely concentrated in governments. Today, large tech corporations control attention, shape financial decisions, and regulate the flow of information on a massive scale. The phenomenon known as “corposlop” illustrates this well — these are seemingly helpful systems that quietly reinforce user dependency. Data collection far exceeds actual needs, closed ecosystems block competition, and algorithms maximize engagement by inciting emotions.

This pattern extends far beyond the tech sector itself. Medical franchises copy proven but safe ideas instead of experimenting. Activist initiatives follow trends until engagement drops. The result is a culture dominated by uniform thinking and transactional relationships with users. Such restraint in innovation harms the entire ecosystem.

Why did Bitcoin Maxis oppose ICOs?

Vitalik Buterin’s comments contain an important observation: early maximalists did not reject ICOs out of fear of innovation, but to protect user sovereignty. Their concerns primarily centered on preventing financial systems from becoming another tool of corporate control. However, their strategy often involved restricting access to tools rather than empowering individual agency. Despite its imperfections, the basic instinct proved to be correct.

Vitalik emphasized that it is crucial to distinguish between an “open network” (which is actually a corposlop) and a “sovereign network” based on genuine user choice.

Where to look for change?

Not all large tech companies have adopted a profit-maximization model at the expense of freedom. Some invest in long-term design, privacy protection, and restraint in data collection. They follow trends rather than succumb to them. However, monopolistic positions even of these more ethical players weaken the potential for broader competition and innovation.

The concept of sovereignty is expanding today beyond national borders. It encompasses data privacy, mental autonomy, and control over one’s digital resources. The internet has fragmented into three zones: chaotic open networks, tightly monitored ecosystems, and encrypted spaces based on genuine trust.

What should change?

The resilience of the future depends on independent infrastructure, local energy, and decentralized computing power. Financial tools should promote sustainability rather than speculative gambling. Social platforms must reward long-term value, not endless content scrolling. AI systems should support human capabilities, not replace them.

In response to these challenges, creators will focus on local software, privacy-preserving finance, and bottom-up governance. DAOs, redesigned without absolute token dominance, can support independent communities and missions. Beyond the digital world, physical communities are also reorganizing around shared values and intentional lifestyles — restoring agency where corporate algorithms have taken it away.