Financial inclusion is a distraction. It frames crypto as a charity project for the unbanked, ignoring that its primary users are the over-banked seeking censorship resistance and self-custody.
the-cypherpunk-ethos-in-modern-crypto
Blog
Why 'Financial Inclusion' Misses the Point of Crypto
The industry's focus on 'financial inclusion' is a Trojan horse for legacy system values. True crypto is a cypherpunk project: building sovereign technology to replace, not replicate, the exclusionary and surveillant architecture of traditional finance.
introduction
THE MISDIRECTION
Introduction: The Trojan Horse of 'Inclusion'
The 'financial inclusion' narrative is a marketing tool that obscures crypto's core value proposition: sovereignty through verifiable computation.
The real innovation is sovereignty. Protocols like Ethereum and Solana create a new asset class: provable, unstoppable digital property. This is the antithesis of the fractional-reserve, permissioned banking system.
Inclusion follows infrastructure. True adoption comes from building credible neutrality and low-friction rails, not marketing. The growth of Uniswap and MakerDAO proves users migrate to superior, open financial primitives.
Evidence: Less than 1% of Sub-Saharan Africa uses crypto for remittances, while over $7B in daily volume flows through decentralized exchanges globally, dominated by sophisticated users.
key-trends
BEYOND BANKING THE UNBANKED
The Great Fork: Two Paths for Crypto
The 'financial inclusion' narrative is a legacy cage. The real crypto revolution is building new, sovereign systems that render the old ones obsolete.
01
The Problem: Permissioned Access
Legacy finance's 'inclusion' means letting you into their walled garden. You get a custodial account, not property rights.\n- Custodial Risk: Your assets are an IOU on a private ledger.\n- Censorship Surface: A single KYC/AML flag can lock you out.\n- Innovation Ceiling: You can only use what the institution permits.
100%
Custodial
1 Entity
Gatekeeper
02
The Solution: Unforgeable Property Rights
Crypto's core innovation is digital scarcity and self-custody via public key cryptography. Your seed phrase is your sovereignty.\n- Non-Custodial: Assets are held in smart contracts or wallets you alone control.\n- Censorship-Resistant: Transactions are validated by decentralized consensus, not a compliance officer.\n- Composable: Assets become programmable legos in DeFi protocols like Aave and Uniswap.
24/7/365
Settlement
0 Intermediaries
Finality
03
The Problem: Extractive Intermediation
Traditional finance is a rent-seeking layer cake. Every intermediary—correspondent banks, clearinghouses, payment processors—takes a cut for 'trust'.\n- High Latency: Cross-border settlement takes 2-5 days.\n- Opaque Fees: Embedded costs can consume 3-7% of transaction value.\n- Systemic Fragility: Relies on trusted third parties, creating single points of failure.
3-7%
Fee Leakage
2-5 Days
Settlement Time
04
The Solution: Disintermediated Settlement
Blockchains are settlement layers that automate trust. Smart contracts replace rent-seeking intermediaries with deterministic code.\n- Atomic Finality: Value transfer and contract execution settle in ~12 seconds (Ethereum) or ~400ms (Solana).\n- Transparent Pricing: Gas fees are public and predictable.\n- Protocol-Owned Liquidity: Automated market makers like Curve and Balancer replace broker-dealers.
~12s
Ethereum Block Time
$0.01
Solana Tx Cost
05
The Problem: Closed-Loop Data Silos
Your financial identity and history are locked inside proprietary databases. You cannot port your credit score or transaction history to a better system.\n- Vendor Lock-In: Switching banks is a logistical nightmare.\n- Surveillance Capitalism: Your data is monetized without your direct benefit.\n- No Verifiable Reputation: Trust is based on opaque, centralized scoring.
0 Portability
Your Data
100% Opaque
Scoring
06
The Solution: Portable, Sovereign Identity
Decentralized identifiers (DIDs) and verifiable credentials (VCs) on chains like Ethereum and Polygon let you own and selectively disclose your history.\n- Self-Sovereign: You control your identity primitive (e.g., ENS name, Unstoppable Domains).\n- Composable Reputation: Build a verifiable on-chain resume for undercollateralized lending.\n- Zero-Knowledge Proofs: Projects like zkPass enable private verification of off-chain data.
1.9M+
ENS Names
ZK-Proofs
Privacy
deep-dive
THE MISALIGNMENT
Deep Dive: From Cypherpunk Blueprint to Corporate Rebrand
The industry's pivot to 'financial inclusion' is a marketing narrative that fundamentally misrepresents crypto's original purpose of building sovereign, censorship-resistant systems.
Crypto's core value is sovereignty, not access. The cypherpunk ethos, codified in Bitcoin's genesis block, prioritized permissionless exit from legacy financial rails over onboarding the unbanked. Protocols like Monero and Wasabi Wallet operationalize this by making transaction censorship computationally infeasible.
Financial inclusion is a Trojan horse for compliance. Corporate rebrands by entities like Ripple and Circle frame crypto as a more efficient SWIFT, which requires KYC/AML layers that recreate the gatekeepers crypto was designed to dismantle. This is the antithesis of pseudonymous P2P cash.
The technical roadmap diverges. Building for inclusion optimizes for low fees and high TPS on compliant L2s. Building for sovereignty requires privacy-preserving tech like zk-SNARKs (Zcash) and decentralized sequencers that resist regulatory capture. These are incompatible design goals.
Evidence: Ethereum's transition to PoS and OFAC-compliant block production illustrates the tension. Over 45% of post-Merge blocks have been OFAC-compliant, demonstrating how economic incentives naturally align with regulation when the design goal shifts from censorship-resistance to institutional adoption.
THE CORE TRADE-OFF
Inclusion vs. Sovereignty: A Protocol Comparison
Comparing the architectural and philosophical priorities of traditional financial inclusion models versus crypto-native sovereignty models.
| Feature / Metric | Traditional Fintech (Inclusion) | Permissioned DeFi (Hybrid) | Sovereign Crypto (Sovereignty) |
|---|---|---|---|
Primary Objective | Access to existing financial rails | Regulatory-compliant yield & access | Censorship-resistant ownership |
User Asset Custody | |||
Protocol Governance Token | |||
On-Chain Settlement Finality | |||
Typical KYC Requirement | |||
Transaction Reversibility | |||
Example Entities | Chime, Revolut | Circle (USDC), Aave Arc | Bitcoin, Ethereum, Uniswap |
counter-argument
THE MISPLACED GOAL
Counter-Argument: Isn't Accessibility a Prerequisite?
Prioritizing accessibility for non-users misdirects resources from solving the core technical problems that will create genuine, permissionless utility.
Financial inclusion is a distraction. Crypto's primary goal is building credibly neutral infrastructure, not onboarding the unbanked. The existing financial system already provides access; its flaws are censorship and rent-seeking, not availability.
Accessibility follows utility. Protocols like Uniswap and Aave succeeded because they offered novel, self-custodial utility first. User-friendly wallets like Rabby and Privy emerged to serve the existing demand, not create it.
The bottleneck is infrastructure, not UX. Scaling solutions like zkSync and Arbitrum must prioritize decentralization and security over simplifying fiat on-ramps. A secure, scalable base layer attracts developers who build accessible applications.
Evidence: Ethereum's developer activity and TVL grew during bear markets with poor UX, driven by L2 rollup and restaking primitives. Utility, not simplicity, retains capital and talent.
takeaways
THE REAL GOAL
Takeaways: Building for Sovereignty, Not Inclusion
Crypto's core value is not just cheaper remittances; it's architecting systems where users own their assets, data, and identity by default.
01
The Problem: The 'Banked but Enslaved' User
Financial inclusion often means onboarding users into new custodial systems. The goal shifts from self-custody to user capture, replicating Web2's rent-seeking model.
- Vulnerability: Users trade sovereignty for convenience, remaining exposed to platform risk and censorship.
- Misaligned Incentives: Protocols optimize for TVL and user growth, not for user-controlled exit.
>99%
Custodial Risk
0
Real Sovereignty
02
The Solution: Architect for Exit, Not Lock-In
Design systems where leaving is a first-class feature. This is the true test of decentralization, forcing protocols to compete on service quality, not captivity.
- Portable Identity: Systems like Ethereum's EOAs and Solana's token-ledger model let users move their history.
- Non-Custodial Primitives: AA Wallets (like Safe) and intent-based systems (like UniswapX) execute on user terms.
~0s
Migration Time
100%
Asset Control
03
The Metric: Sovereignty-Weighted TVL
Move beyond Total Value Locked. Measure value secured in non-custodial, verifiable, and composable smart contracts. This exposes the fragility of faux-decentralized finance.
- Real DeFi: Protocols like MakerDAO, Aave, and Uniswap where users hold keys.
- Illusory DeFi: Centralized exchanges and wrapped assets with opaque backing.
$50B+
Sovereign TVL
10x Risk
Custodial Multiplier
04
The Blueprint: L1s as Sovereignty Layers
Base-layer blockchains (Ethereum, Solana, Bitcoin) are not just settlement layers; they are the root of trust for sovereign systems. Apps built on them inherit credible neutrality.
- Verifiable State: Anyone can audit the ledger, enabling trustless bridges like Across and LayerZero.
- Censorship Resistance: The base layer's decentralization is the ultimate backstop against application-layer capture.
1M+
Nodes
Absolute
Finality
05
The Trap: Abstraction as Re-Centralization
Over-engineering UX often reintroduces custodial points of failure. Social recovery wallets, gas sponsorship, and transaction bundling must be designed with sovereignty-preserving cryptography.
- Risk: Services like Coinbase's Base L2 or MetaMask's portfolio dapp can become de facto gatekeepers.
- Antidote: Use ZK-proofs and multi-party computation to abstract without surrendering control.
-100%
Trust Assumption
Critical
Design Flaw
06
The Pivot: Build for Sovereign Individuals, Not 'The Unbanked'
The target user is anyone who values ownership. This includes the technically savvy, politically oppressed, and institutionally distrustful. Their needs drive robust, permissionless infrastructure.
- Product Fit: Tools for multisig governance, on-chain reputation, and data portability.
- Outcome: Networks that survive state-level pressure, like Bitcoin and Tornado Cash, demonstrate real-world sovereignty.
1B+
Target Market
Unstoppable
Network Effect
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall