Ricardo F. Morín Still Life 22″ x 30″ Mixed media on paper 2000
Ricardo F. Morín
March 31, 2026
Oakland Park, Florida
A relation between two individuals may appear stable even when it rests on a false premise. A decision is put forward without support and accepted before it is tested. One speaks; the other adjusts. A claim is introduced and taken in without examination. When contradiction appears, it is set aside. The relation holds because one asserts and the other accepts. An account of two individuals may appear exceptional, but the relation it reveals is not confined to them.
A wider relation between individuals, sustained by excluding contradiction, does not require agreement. It requires direction and alignment. A statement is repeated as if it were already settled and is carried forward as something to maintain. A speaker states a position with certainty and without qualification, and others accept that certainty as evidence of its validity rather than examine the claim itself. A shared account sets what may be said; questioning it is excluded. A decision holds because it confirms what is already assumed. The relation continues without being questioned.
At what point does such a relation stop interpreting reality and begin to act in its place? Not when a false claim appears, but when the relation no longer allows it to be tested. As long as claims are tested, disagreement examined, and adjustment follows evidence, the relation remains open. The shift occurs when alignment replaces testing. A claim is carried forward before it is checked and no longer stands as something to be tested.
Contradiction no longer interrupts the relation. It is dismissed or set aside and does not enter the decision. What does not fit is excluded from what follows.
A claim holds because it repeats what has already been said. Affirmation arises within the relation itself. Correction becomes unlikely.
A decision formed within the relation is carried out beyond it without being checked, and a person who did not take part in forming it is required to comply. The effect on that person is not examined and is treated as secondary to keeping the claim in place. Each participant encounters the effect on the person subject to the decision. Each participant continues to act in accordance with the claim and sets that recognition aside in order to maintain alignment. The action continues before either law or ethics can take hold.
Decisions are then measured against what has already been affirmed rather than against what is present. Behavior proceeds without testing. Judgments form within closed circles of affirmation. In an investment partnership, a senior partner advances a thesis under time pressure and incomplete information, and others commit capital on the strength of that authority rather than on outside validation. Elsewhere, under unresolved uncertainty, in a clinical setting, available tests do not resolve the diagnosis, and a physician advances a working assumption; care proceeds on that basis as it is repeated and affirmed, while conflicting signs are set aside. What appears consistent within produces actions that do not fit the conditions they are meant to address.
A relation of this kind also defines responsibility in a limited way. Each participant attends to the other within the relation, but not to those affected by it. Agreement between participants does not extend to those who are subject to what the relation produces. Within the relation, nothing presents itself as a breach: the claim is affirmed, the decision follows, and alignment is maintained, so no point of interruption arises from which it could be judged. Responsibility would require that each participant consider how the claim and the decision affect those outside the relation and allow that effect to alter or halt what follows. Where that does not occur, responsibility remains contained within the relation, and those outside it are acted upon without their situation entering into the decision.
The difference between shared belief and shared distortion lies in whether the relation allows correction. Where contradiction can enter and be considered, the relation remains open. Where it is excluded, the relation closes.
The problem does not begin when a claim is false. It begins when the relation that sustains it no longer allows it to be tested.
Ricardo Morín Still Twenty-three: The Crypto Ladder Oil on linen & board 12″ x 15″ x 1/2″ 2012
Ricardo F. Morín
February 27, 2026
Oakland Park, Florida
*
Cryptocurrency claims independence from financial authority. In practice, tokens are bought, sold, and stored on centralized exchanges that control custody, execute trades, and process withdrawals. When participants leave their assets on these platforms, the exchange holds the private keys and manages access to funds. Control therefore shifts from regulated banks, which operate under capital requirements, liquidity rules, and continuous supervisory oversight, to private trading platforms that are incorporated in different jurisdictions and are subject to differing disclosure rules, reserve standards, and enforcement practices. The protections available to participants depend on the rules that apply in the jurisdiction where the platform operates.
Before public trading begins, access to newly issued tokens is limited to founders, private investors, or participants in early distribution rounds. Transactions during this stage occur within that restricted group, and prices reflect exchanges among those who received tokens prior to public trading.
When public trading opens, additional buyers gain access through exchanges. They compete to purchase the existing supply from those who received or acquired tokens prior to public trading. Because supply does not immediately expand, buyers increase their bids against one another. As bids rise, the market price increases.
When participants who acquired tokens earlier sell at the elevated market price created by competitive bidding, later buyers transfer capital through those purchases, and that capital becomes the profit realized by earlier sellers.The exchange of tokens at increasing prices depends on the expectation that other participants will continue to enter the market and accept those prices. This expectation is not produced by the transaction itself; it precedes it and is shared among participants. Under these conditions, value depends on the continued participation of others, and information about that participation is not distributed evenly among participants.Participants who obtain information about expected demand earlier than others are able to act before prices adjust, and this difference in timing affects how gains and losses are distributed.
Token systems can distribute supply broadly at issuance through public offerings or community allocations. Once trading begins, however, participants with greater capital can accumulate larger positions by purchasing from those with smaller positions. Over time, this accumulation concentrates supply within a smaller group. Participants who acquire positions earlier, or who can continue purchasing during periods of lower demand, come to control larger portions of supply than those who enter later or must sell under pressure.
If demand continues to exceed available supply, buyers increase their bids and prices rise. If demand declines and fewer buyers submit bids, the increase in price stops. When participants with large positions attempt to sell into a declining market, they submit large sell orders to the exchange. Those orders must match with buyers willing to purchase at the current price. If buyers submit bids at lower prices, sellers accept those lower bids in order to complete the trade. Each completed trade at a lower price becomes the new market price. As the quoted price falls, additional participants with open positions decide to sell in order to limit further loss. Those later sales occur at lower prices than earlier trades. Each completed sale alters the price available to others. Participants who exit earlier do so under different conditions than those who remain. The sequence of action changes the conditions of action for those who follow.
When requests for withdrawals exceed the cash or liquid assets an exchange holds, the platform restricts withdrawals or halts trading in order to slow the outflow. At that point, price formation no longer governs the system; access to liquidity does. When prices reverse and many customers attempt to withdraw funds at the same time, exchanges that lack sufficient immediately available assets cannot satisfy all requests simultaneously. Participants must wait, and access to funds depends on the exchange’s internal capacity rather than on individual account balances alone. Account balances continue to record claims, but the ability to act on those claims depends on the platform’s capacity to honor them.
Even when tokens are initially distributed across many wallets, trading activity can lead to uneven accumulation. Participants with larger capital reserves can buy during downturns and retain their positions through volatility. Participants with smaller positions may sell under financial pressure. Over repeated cycles, ownership can become concentrated despite dispersed beginnings.
Under these conditions, order of entry shapes distribution. Early participants accept uncertainty about whether demand will materialize. Later participants accept higher acquisition costs once demand has already raised prices. Gains and losses follow the sequence in which participants assume risk and provide capital.
Traditional banks and regulated stock exchanges operate under supervisory rules enforced by public authorities. Banks must maintain capital reserves to absorb losses and liquidity buffers to meet withdrawals. Public companies must disclose financial information so that investors can evaluate risk. In many jurisdictions, deposit insurance protects individual depositors up to defined limits. When institutions face systemic stress, central banks provide liquidity to prevent destabilization of the financial system.
Cryptocurrency markets do not uniformly operate under comparable requirements. Some exchanges publish limited financial information. Reserve practices are not standardized across platforms. Deposit insurance does not apply to token holdings. When an exchange becomes insolvent or mismanages assets, customers become unsecured creditors and bear losses directly. Their claims are not protected at the moment of stress, and recovery depends on liquidation processes that occur after access to funds has already been lost.
Participants who seek to avoid dependence on traditional financial institutions rely instead on trading platforms that combine custody, execution, and leverage services. When such platforms suspend withdrawals or fail, users have limited recourse. The location of authority changes, but reliance on intermediaries remains.
Order of entry continues to influence who gains and who loses. In regulated markets, capital requirements, clearing mechanisms, and deposit insurance absorb part of trading losses before they reach individual participants. In cryptocurrency markets, those stabilizing requirements do not uniformly apply. When prices fall, losses move directly from declining trade prices to individual account balances without an intermediary layer that cushions the decline.
Cryptocurrency technology continues to develop. Applications beyond speculative trading expand when protocols are adopted for payment processing, settlement, or other non speculative functions. However, as long as token prices depend on continued buyer participation and as long as ownership becomes concentrated through repeated trading cycles, sequence of entry influences distribution of gains and losses. Any reform that seeks broader participation would need to address how tokens are allocated at issuance, how exchanges manage custody and liquidity, and what protections apply when platforms fail.
Under these conditions, cryptocurrency does not constitute a substitute for banking or for stock markets in a strict institutional sense. The functions of custody, execution, and liquidity provision persist, but they are carried out under different conditions and without uniform frameworks of protection.
The structure described here does not remove authority from the system of exchange. It relocates authority. Banks operate under capital requirements, liquidity rules, and continuous public oversight. Trading platforms do not operate under comparable constraints. In regulated institutions, authority is exercised through rules that constrain institutional behavior before failure occurs; on trading platforms, authority is exercised through control over access, execution, and withdrawal at the moment participants seek to act.The location of authority changes, but authority remains.
The language of decentralization coexists with continued reliance on centralized exchanges for custody, liquidity, and rule enforcement. Participants deposit funds, accept platform terms, and depend on exchange decisions even as they describe the system as independent of institutional authority. Independence is asserted at the level of description, while dependence persists at the level of operation.