“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”
Who guards the guardians?
The Romans asked this question centuries ago.
Today, it feels more relevant than ever.
With the likely next Chair of the Federal Reserve System, Kevin Warsh, something unusual is emerging from the conversation: a recognition that Bitcoin has a role beyond speculation. As a disciplinary signal.
If banks are supervised by the state, and markets are regulated by unelected authorities, a simple question follows naturally: Who is watching the state itself?
Warsh seems to understand something fundamental: Bitcoin is a tool of accountability.
Not because it “fixes” policy, but because it offers an exit. And exit changes behavior.
This idea isn’t new.
In the 1970s, economist Exit, Voice, and Loyalty described how individuals respond to declining systems:
For decades, the global financial system gradually removed the exit option.
Currencies became uniform.
Capital flowed freely.
Central banks converged on the same playbook: inflation targets, QE, monetary expansion.
There was no alternative game to play.
Bitcoin changed that.
It doesn’t overthrow institutions. It doesn’t vote. It doesn’t lobby.
It simply exists, as an outside option. And that alone disciplines the system.
If monetary policy is sound, Bitcoin remains niche.
If policy becomes distorted, politicized, or captured, Bitcoin signals it, instantly.
This is why the conversation matters.
Not because Bitcoin will replace fiat.
But because fiat systems behave differently when exit exists.
At OffChain Luxembourg, we’ve always seen Bitcoin first through this lens, as a safety valve in a closed system.
A quiet reminder that trust must be earned, not enforced.
Whether central banks like it or not, the age of unchallenged monetary monopoly is over.
And that might be the healthiest thing that’s happened to money in decades. 🧡
