Posts Tagged ‘hierarchy’

“The Crypto Ladder”

April 1, 2026

*

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.


“Echoes of a Decanter”

March 5, 2025

*

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 0005.jpg
Decantation [2003], CGI by Ricardo Morín
Decantation [2003], CGI by Ricardo Morín

*


The air inside the old factory was thick with dust and conviction.      They had scrubbed the floors, repainted the walls, and reclaimed the space from its past, but the scent of rust and oil still lingered.      It smelled like work—like history.

Emil stood on a makeshift stage, elevated by wooden pallets stacked two high.      His voice carried across the room, each word striking with certainty.

“This is not another failed experiment.      This is not a return to old mistakes.      We are forging a new path—beyond capitalism, beyond the betrayals of so-called socialism.      This time, we get it right.”

Applause.      Nods of approval.      They had heard these words before, but this time, they believed them.

Isolde sat at the back, arms crossed, expression unreadable.      She had stood in this same room decades ago, listening to a different voice, hearing the same promise.      The factory, reborn each time, looked different, yet the space was always the same—a decanter of sorts, enclosing the same history, slowly pouring out its essence, again and again.

After the speech, as people gathered in small circles of animated discussion, Emil approached her.

“You don’t look convinced.”

“I don’t mistake passion for direction,” she said.

Emil smiled, as if indulging an elder.      “This time is different, Isolde.      We’ve studied history.      We won’t repeat their mistakes.”

She exhaled, looking past him to the crowd.      The factory hummed quietly behind them, a machine just starting to remember its old rhythms.      “You misunderstand history.      It’s not something you repeat.      It’s something that returns to you, whether you invite it or not.”

He shook his head.      He didn’t believe in ghosts.      But the air, thick with the weight of their past, seemed to hum with the same unspoken inevitability.      It reminded Isolde of something trapped within glass—preserved, yet futile in its attempts to remain unbroken. . .


The first weeks were golden.

Decisions were made by assembly.      Every worker had an equal say, an equal share, an equal stake.      The old machinery roared to life under new hands.      They printed new posters, declaring the rebirth of labor, the death of the boss.

For the first time, they worked for themselves.

But cracks, barely visible at first, began to form.

Meetings dragged for hours, circular debates with no resolution.      Some tasks were more desirable than others—some avoided the heavy lifting, citing ideological objections.      “Why should one person labor while another coordinates?”

“Because someone must,” Isolde murmured to herself.      Unheard.

Then came the first real crisis: a large order, a deadline, a need for efficiency.      The factory moved too slowly.      The assembly stalled.      Arguments flared.

“We need someone to oversee production,” Emil admitted.      “Just temporarily.”

A vote was cast.      A mediator was appointed.      He wasn’t a manager, they told themselves, just a guide.      But the balance had shifted.      The factory, like a vessel caught in an unrelenting tide, began to carry more than it could manage.

Isolde watched, saying nothing.


The mediator, needing to keep things moving, made quick decisions.      The assembly approved them after the fact.      The difference was subtle, but it grew.

Some workers were better at certain tasks, so roles solidified.      Someone had to negotiate with suppliers.      Someone had to ensure deadlines were met.      The mediator took on these roles, because it was easier.

“We need structure,” he explained.      “Not hierarchy, just order.”

Emil, exhausted, nodded.      The structure, which had once felt so free, began to settle into something heavier.      Something permanent.      Like the decanter that holds liquid—only to release it back into the world, though it never truly escapes its confines.

One evening, alone in his office—the office that wasn’t supposed to exist—he flipped through old books.      The words were familiar, but they read differently now.      He found a passage from an old revolutionary text, underlined by his own hand years ago:

“The first illusion of power is that it does not exist.”

He closed the book.      His fingers lingered on the edge of the paper, as though searching for something that had slipped away, like water escaping through a crack.


The next crisis arrived without warning.      A strike—among themselves.      Some demanded higher pay.      “Shouldn’t work be compensated by effort?”      They were equals, but some were more equal in labor than others.

Emil tried to reason with them.      “That’s not how this works.      We’re breaking that cycle.”

“Then why do you sit in the office while we sweat on the floor?”

He had no answer.

Another vote.      A restructuring.      A new proposal:      an oversight committee.      The committee became a board.      Outside investors offered financial stability.      A small compromise.      A necessary evil.

By the end of the year, the factory had become what it swore it never would.

Emil found Isolde in the break room, sipping tea.

“We tried,” he said.      “So did we,” she replied.

Silence.

“Why does it always end this way?” he asked.

Isolde set her cup down.      Her eyes met his, trapped in exhaustion, as though each glance carried the gravity of countless broken promises, like a fractured decanter.

“Because we are human.”


Years later, Emil walked past the factory.      It was thriving.      Not revolutionary.      Not a failure.      Just another business.

Inside, a new group of young activists had gathered.      Their leader, no older than he had been, stood on stacked wooden pallets, speaking with fire.

“We are not repeating the past.      We are forging a new path.      This time, we get it right.”

Emil did not stop to listen.

From the distance, Isolde watched.

“And so it begins again,” she whispered.

~

Ricardo Federico Morín Tortolero

March 5, 2025; Oakland Park, Florida