{"id":11878,"date":"2022-01-20T03:00:00","date_gmt":"2022-01-20T03:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ci02979c45a00026c7"},"modified":"2025-10-01T13:17:40","modified_gmt":"2025-10-01T18:17:40","slug":"bitcoin-the-theoretical-model-black-hole","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/culture\/bitcoin-the-theoretical-model-black-hole","title":{"rendered":"Bitcoin Is A Black Hole For Theoretical Models"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

For the purposes of this article, the following theoretical epochs will be identified, described and applied to Bitcoin adoption, resistance and narratives: classical theory, neo-classical theory, systems theory, human relations theory, power and politics, chaos theory, critical theory, inter-governmental relations and interpretive theory. Bitcoin will be addressed as an asset class which spans all the theoretical models presented and one in which alternative asset classes are being demonetized. <\/p>\n

Part One: A Quick History Of Thinkers<\/h2>\n

Classical theory crash course:<\/em> In 1911, Frederick Taylor published the \u201cPrinciples Of Scientific Management,\u201d where, in essence, he proposed that there was one best way<\/em> in order to do, essentially, all things. The theory was integrated into a variety of real-world applications, most notably, the production of the automobile<\/a>. As such, Taylor\u2019s model revolutionized the assembly of vehicles by reducing the worker to a single task in many cases. Assembly lines grew in popularity, production costs decreased, profit margins increased and humans got carpal tunnel syndrome from having to insert the same bolt, on the same part, for the same car, for a lifetime. This was, for all intents and purposes, classical theory at its finest. <\/p>\n

Classical theory posits that organizations exist to accomplish an economic goal.<\/p>\n

<\/figure>\n

Neo-classical theory crash course: <\/em>\u201cNeo\u201d is just a fancy word for new, however, when coupled with \u201cclassical\u201d (old), it is an oxymoronic phrase, i.e., the \u201cnew-old\u201d theory. <\/p>\n

A few decades after Taylor\u2019s theories became reality, Herbert Simon was publishing work and introducing coined terms such as \u201csaticficing\u201d (a hybrid of the words \u201csatisfy\u201d and \u201csuffice\u201d) to explain administrative behavior when presented with difficult decisions, limited information, knowledge, resources or worse, according to \u201cClassics Of Organization Theory<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

There were thinkers far ahead of their time during the neo-classical era, such as Mary Parker Follett, a classical thinker who raged against classical thought. In her mind, Follett believed that employees were reduced to being \u201ccogs in a wheel.\u201d Follett proposed that people were not a unit of operation, as noted in \u201cClassics Of Organization Theory.\u201d She cracked the door open for subsequent theories, such as systems theory<\/a> and human relations theory<\/a>. As neo-classical theory\u2019s sun had set, the era was defined not by forward thinkers such as Follett, but rather by organizations being seen as self-contained islands which could be finely tuned for maximum efficiency and that humans were analyzers and decision makers for these islands.<\/p>\n

<\/figure>\n

Systems theory crash course: Herbert Simon blurred the line between neo-classical and systems theories, as his impact spanned both epochs. Within this era, each part of the organization could only be understood in relation to the other parts of the system; this was later translated to \u201csurvival\u201d of the system. Katz and Kahn (1966) introduced the world to the notion that the independent and isolated islands (organizations, business, etc.) were not so isolated after all; these systems required energetic inputs and outputs (think raw materials, parts, ideas) and once introduced, they would \u201cenergize\u201d or \u201cre-energize\u201d the system. As a result, systems theory opened the door to the idea that organizational systems, while complex systems within themselves, were also part of a greater, external system, per \u201cClassics Of Organization Theory.\u201d<\/p>\n

Human relations theory crash course:<\/em> Human relations is also known as human development, human resources, human capital, etc. During this era, thinkers such as Abraham Maslow (\u201cHierarchy Of Needs<\/a>\u201d) and Douglas McGregor (Theory X and Theory Y<\/a>) took center stage; and the \u201cmotivation theory\u201d era was born. While the \u201chierarchy\u201d has been adapted over the years to include upper tiers of \u201ctranscendence,\u201d Maslow\u2019s original proposition, that human \u201cneeds\u201d had to be met in order for people to not only survive, but thrive in organizations and in life, took off like a wildfire. The visual below represents a simplified model where each person starts at the bottom and attempts to work their way up.<\/p>\n

<\/figure>\n

McGregor took the motivation components of Maslow\u2019s work and adapted them to a concept of management. McGregor introduced Theory X and Theory Y. Simply put, people who view the world through a \u201cTheory X\u201d mindset view humans as unmotivated. Theory X proposes that humans avoid responsibility, have little ambition, are lazy and as such, rewards and punishments are required by managers. <\/p>\n

If you\u2019re nodding your head, you probably view the world through a Theory X mindset, or had a supervisor who did, and as such, if you\u2019re a manager or supervisor, you probably micromanage your employees; and if you were micromanaged, you might have had a supervisor who saw you as lazy, unmotivated or lacking ambition. This is also where the phrase \u201ccarrots and sticks\u201d took off in the management world.<\/p>\n

Theory Y is different. A Theory Y mindset proposes that humans are intrinsically motivated and as such, given that the human is doing something fulfilling, the work itself is the reward; no carrots or sticks needed. One could argue that the fictional character Ted Lasso essentially views the world through a Theory Y filter. Human relations theory presented to the world that individuals have an important role in an organization. The idea of suggesting that you might have the right people but that they could also be in the wrong spot took root.<\/p>\n

<\/figure>\n

Power and politics theory crash course: This theoretical era should really be entitled \u201cpower, politics and influence\u201d but we can\u2019t go back in time and re-coin it, so here we are. John French and Bertram Raven identified five forms of power<\/a>, however, the underlying framework of the theory really questioned the difference between power and leadership. I\u2019m sure there is an arsenal of examples that will flood your mind once they are listed in a moment; please know that it\u2019s ok to pause and reflect (cringe) as you recall terrible (traumatic) leadership of your past, but when you snap out of it, let’s continue. <\/p>\n

Reward, expert, referent, legitimate and coercive power were foundational concepts for this theoretical era. This is also the era where theorists such as Karl Marx attempted to describe what they perceived as exploitations of the middle class through the \u201cexploiters\u201d (bourgeoisie<\/em>) and the oppressed (proletariat<\/em>).<\/p>\n

<\/figure>\n

Chaos theory crash course: If you have been involved in a restructuring, reduction in force or \u201cright sizing,\u201d you can empathize with the disequilibrium created as one system breaks, experimentation commences and a new system is formulated or reformulated. Kurt Lewin acknowledged this when he reminded the academic community that profound change occurs when a whole system changes. Chris Argyris introduced concepts such as double loop learning <\/a>and models such as the ladder of inference.<\/p>\n

<\/figure>\n

In chaos theory, there was a significant focus on the process being more important than the structure, as outlined by Cornell University Professor Steven Strogatz in \u201cNonlinear Dynamics And Chaos<\/a>.\u201d <\/p>\n

Critical theory crash course: In the more recent era, J\u00fcrgen Habermas proposed that language shaped life, per \u201cClassics Of Organizational Theory.\u201d As such, reasoning models and the use of verbiage could (would and had) shaped the world. Robert Denhardt proposed that<\/a> citizens distrusted bureaucrats and as such, distrusted government<\/p>\n

Critical theory opened the door for quotes such as, \u201cWe know they are lying, they know they are lying, they know we know they are lying, we know they know we know they are lying, but they are still lying,\u201d attributed to Elena Gorokhova<\/a>. Critical theory proposed that humans were in conflict with \u201cthe self\u201d and that a voice should be given to those who cannot be heard.<\/p>\n

Inter-governmental relations (IGR) theory crash course: IGR was the era of Roosevelt and Reagan as well as policies such as The New Deal, social security and welfare, according to Victor Pestoff<\/a>; as well as counter measures such as a reduction of national grants to states and an attempt to separate states from the federal government. In the most simple sense, IGR works to explain the relationship between different \u201cgovernments\u201d within one country. Within the U.S. for example, there are a variety of \u201cgovernments\u201d which exist and work, some harmoniously, some, well, not so much, as Pestoff explained.<\/p>\n

Interpretive theory crash course: Congratulations, you\u2019ve reached the end of the abbreviated crash course; know that each of these sections have many more theorists, researchers and material to cover if you\u2019re interested. Interpretive theory can be a bit of a mind bend, and with limited characters, I\u2019ll do my best to keep it simple. Get your head ready for perceiving the world through \u201cThe Matrix.\u201d<\/p>\n

There are three theorists we can focus on to help clarify the confusion. Emmanuel Kant, Alfred Schultz and Peter Berger; again, there are many more, but we\u2019ve got to stay on track. Kant proposed that the ultimate reality was held within the spirit or an idea more than what was perceived to be that idea; as such conversations of morality grew, as is explained in \u201cThe Social Construct Of Reality<\/a>\u201d and \u201cClassics Of Organizational Theory.\u201d<\/p>\n

Schultz saw the world through a lens of understood meanings, which were subjective, per \u201cClassics Of Organizational Theory.\u201d For example, two people could witness the same event and come to different \u201crealities\u201d of what had occurred based on their perspective, experiences and biases. Finally, Berger worked to describe<\/a> the social construction of reality<\/em>. Avid readers who have explored Miguel de Cervantes\u2019 work, \u201cDon Quixote,\u201d will grasp this concept quickly. A potentially value-free society (social science) gained traction during this era. <\/p>\n

These theoretical models, from my perspective, will play a role in how Bitcoin and Web 3.0 will be understood for generations to come; not only in an academic sense, but in what society perceives to be their reality.<\/p>\n

Part Two: Dear Bitcoin, Welcome To The Theoretical Model Universe<\/h2>\n

One could make the argument that at every epoch presented above, Bitcoin was bound to have taken root. From a classical model and a \u201cone best way\u201d solution to the money problem, future theorists may propose that Bitcoin is the most rational economic principle and as such, the set structural arrangements and behaviors coded into the software and algorithms accomplish the economic goals of the world. Bitcoin as perfect money addresses the need for an alternative financial system in the future.<\/p>\n

Neo-classical theorists could suggest that Bitcoin \u201csatisficed\u201d its way through the early years. Soft and hard forks, the Lighting Network, Taproot, etc., are examples of the Bitcoin ecosystem coming to the realization that it is no longer a self-contained island and that the Bitcoin system exists within a system of systems, some which help and some which attempt to compromise the protocol. I perceive this as those kids who discovered a no-name band long ago and, once the band became popular, songs were interpreted in alternative ways that what the original followers believed. The new interpretations frustrated early adopters and in the end, growth occurred regardless of the original adopter\u2019s perceptions and intentions.<\/p>\n

Systems theorists might posit that Bitcoin\u2019s adaptations were integral to the survival and adoption of the protocol on a global scale. Theory X thinkers might view Bitcoin as a solution to distrust, while Y theorists may provide a counter-thesis and suggest that Bitcoin represents value from the truest and purest of forms.<\/p>\n

Human relations theorists may propose that individuals involved with the development and continued support of the protocol represent real people, who, in turn, house the most significant aspect of the system; survival. Eventually servers will need repair or upgrade, integration software and hardware will evolve and experiences will be shared; all coordinated by humans.<\/p>\n

Power will be garnered in a variety of ways, through legitimate means, referent belief, reward incentives, coercive tactics or expertise via commentary. Class systems may change, some in power once may lose their soap boxes or swords and others who had no influence may gain leverage. Learning will occur and those who apply a reflexive or double-loop approach may have a competitive advantage.<\/p>\n

Critical theorists may propose that Bitcoin\u2019s birth was from an inherent distrust of government. Perhaps that, when the history of Bitcoin is written from a theoretical perspective, they\u2019ll argue that it all began with theorists such as Denhardt.<\/p>\n

IGR theorists might argue that true Bitcoin adoption (or failure) lay within how governments, at all levels, adopted or shunned the technology. How bureaucrats had to have conversations about the technology and how the potential adoption or rejection would alter local municipalities, counties, states and the country forever. <\/p>\n

Finally, interpretive theorists might bring into focus the difficulty some have in defining what is reality; as such, one hurdle for early adopters and skeptics to overcome is rooted in a deeper question of their own perceived reality. <\/p>\n

In some respects, all perspectives detailed above would be correct. In others, they are all deeply flawed when examined individually. Greater thinkers than myself will flesh out where Bitcoin \u201cfits\u201d into the theoretical models and in history well into the future.<\/p>\n

Part Three: Bitcoin Engulfing History, Assets And Theoretical Modeling<\/h2>\n

A NASA engineer once tried to explain blackholes to me, from my perspective it was similar to my failed attempts at explaining Bitcoin to a great-grandparent. One aspect of the black hole conversation, however, stuck with me: the idea that the gravitational pull of a black hole is so powerful that even light cannot escape it. That concept was profound to me; somewhat painful and horrifying, if I\u2019m being honest. <\/p>\n

Once that concept settled and I came to grips with it, I had questions flooding my consciousness. Getting orange pilled or wrapping one’s head around Bitcoin is a similar experience for some, I propose. When skeptics zoom out from the day-to-day price fluctuations and look longer term, even with 80% or more price swings, there has been no better place to store your wealth in the last decade. <\/p>\n

This is a profound concept, but again, we are early. Plumbing, electricity, automobiles and the internet were all fads at one time. Without Keynesian economists there to provide a flood of currency or a stock exchange deciding to \u201chalt trading\u201d when an asset \u201cmoons,\u201d there will be massive moves in both directions as the market determines the value; this is how an asset should act in a free economy during price discovery.<\/p>\n

There have been countless articles, opinions, videos and peer-reviewed papers that describe how Bitcoin is currently \u201ceating\u201d other asset classes; a theoretical black hole of the investment world. A simple example of what could be engulfed would be the bond markets. Yet, the real estate market, as one thinks a bit beyond what is right in front of them, is where the universe could begin to fall into a proverbial Bitcoin black hole death spiral. <\/p>\n

In the simplest sense, consider an investment property in a desirable location; something that could be purchased, renovated and listed for rent. This property, for the owner, might have an ultimate (potential) goal of being an inflation-adjusted revenue stream for the owner for years to come. A property like the one described would then attract not only local investors, but national and international investors. <\/p>\n

As one looks onto the horizon, if bitcoin becomes the store of value some predict it could be, some investors may question if taking on the risk with a property is worth it. Could an investor not simply store their value in bitcoin and as such, would bitcoin not have just \u201ceaten\u201d a piece of that real estate market? Cue the black hole reference. This is what folks mean when they say Bitcoin is \u201cdemonetizing\u201d <\/em>other assets. I propose Bitcoin is also \u201cdematerializing\u201d more than just financial institutions as well; it’s just a matter of time. <\/p>\n

Would home prices not stabilize and become more affordable for residents who actually wanted (needed) to live in a home that wasn\u2019t on an investor\u2019s radar? What about gold, silver or other commodities? Wouldn\u2019t, couldn\u2019t or shouldn\u2019t stability come after speculators have been drawn to another asset? <\/p>\n

Yes, \u201cshouldn\u2019t\u201d is a loaded word. I walked into the office of a mentor once, who happened to also be a pastor. I had excuse after excuse of why I should <\/em>have done this and I shouldn\u2019t <\/em>have done that; in truth, I was a bit of an idiot years ago, less so now, but not by much. He stopped me in my tracks and said, \u201cSon, you\u2019re \u2018shoulding\u2019<\/em> all over yourself; thou shalt not should. Do it, or don\u2019t do it, but shut up about it already.\u201d <\/p>\n

So, I agree, history will play out and we will have commentary from every angle about how something \u201cshould have\u201d or \u201cshould not have\u201d occurred, but in the end, it will have occurred or not occured; but Bitcoin will still be there. The protocol will outlive us all.<\/p>\n

Bitcoin will not theoretically<\/em> engulf or demonetize gold, silver, bonds, real estate and a variety of other investment avenues; bitcoin is demonetizing parts of these asset classes, now. The same can be said in regard to typical \u201csavings\u201d accounts at traditional banks. <\/p>\n

Sure, traditional thinkers and folks who might even hate Bitcoin, the entire crypto space or truly despise the newly-minted crypto millionaires and billionaires, might be hard pressed to rationalize .01% versus 9.0% interest or more on stablecoins. With debit cards becoming available that directly link to stablecoins<\/a>, why does anyone need a debit card from a traditional bank? Third-party applications have already built apps that allow customers to use bitcoin as collateral to finance purchases<\/a>. Let the engulfing commence.<\/p>\n

One aspect that the academic community may wrestle with in the future might be where to categorize Bitcoin in regard to its origins. In a macro view of history, this may be trivial, but academics base their careers on \u201ccoining terms,\u201d and YouTubers base their reputations on \u201ccalling tops;\u201d there is a decent amount of human capital at stake with this trivial endeavor. <\/p>\n

Yes, the 2008 financial crisis was the potential straw that broke the camel\u2019s back, but is the origin of Bitcoin both more and less complex than this single event at the same time? Let\u2019s see if we can \u201clabel\u201d Bitcoin according to those theoretical models detailed above by asking some questions.<\/p>\n

Does Bitcoin, in some respects, fall into a \u201cone best way\u201d model of Taylor\u2019s \u201cScientific Management\u201d and classical theory? Has the crypto community begun to realize that Bitcoin is not a standalone island, and as the space matures, do we not begin to see how some applications \u201csatisficed\u201d and iterating into maturity? Can anyone separate the conversation of Bitcoin from trust and distrust? Bitcoin must fall into the classical or neo-classical arenas then, right?<\/p>\n

Are McGregor\u2019s Theory X and Theory Y models more relevant today than they ever have been before? What about Maslow\u2019s \u201cHierarchy Of Needs\u201d? Bitcoin articles have already been published correlating Maslow\u2019s work<\/a>. Has Bitcoin become a vessel in which all layers of the model, from physiological needs to self-actualization, include Bitcoin? If that is the case, Bitcoin should rest in HR theory, one could argue.<\/p>\n

What about politicians and bureaucrats? Are we only a few years out from power and politics theory becoming center stage? Are we not already in the midst of a conversation of the exploiters and the oppressed? Doesn\u2019t Bitcoin attempt to solve this issue? How about rewards, coercion, legitimacy, referent or expertise in the crypto community? Who has gained traction as an intellectual thought leader in the Bitcoin space? It seems as if Bitcoin has taken over power and politics as well.<\/p>\n

Have communities not already been thrown into disequilibrium; are current financial bedrocks now on unstable ground? Isn\u2019t Bitcoin currently in the \u201cexperimentation\u201d phase of chaos theory? Have protocols not already iterated, have double-loop learning models not already been (and continue to be) applied as developers adapt and innovate? Wasn\u2019t the original idea of Bitcoin begun with a distrust of the government? Chaos theorists are nodding their heads in amusement. <\/p>\n

Critical theory is in play as well, giving a voice to those unheard, or unbanked in this scenario; this is a goal, is it not? Haven\u2019t governmental relationships already taken root in some arenas, or been cast out in others? And hasn\u2019t the concept of \u201creal\u201d versus \u201cvirtual\u201d assets already split the globe as the world grasps with what is reality and perception when considering bitcoin as a viable inflationary hedge? So, which is it?<\/p>\n

I would propose that Bitcoin has roots in all of the theoretical models simultaneously; as such, Bitcoin as a whole, has origins in all and none at the same time. Bitcoin is a black hole when explored through the lens of demonetizing alternative asset classes, but Bitcoin is also a black hole of theoretical models and everything in its path. Bitcoin alone solves problems humans haven\u2019t even considered yet. <\/p>\n

I propose that Bitcoin will pull into the vortex all academic fields of study; from psychology to business, and criminal justice to public administration. All academics will have their once stable and tenured footings, loosened by a changing landscape, one that includes Bitcoin in some manner. If academic communities are not discussing Bitcoin, they should be.<\/p>\n

Colleagues of mine see the organizational theoretical models (classical, neo-classical, systems, HR, power and politics, chaos, critical, IGR and interpretive) chronologically, like chapters in a book or a timeline. I too was trained this way. For generations, this was an accepted and appropriate construction of reality. Bitcoin has bent this reality. What came first or second on a linear theoretical continuum, now occurs simultaneously, violently and chaotically, while maintaining uniformity, patterns of behavior and rationality. <\/p>\n

The reality is both physical and virtual; real and imaginary. As the world becomes not only aware of the space, but chooses to embrace or refute it, it is only a matter of time before theoretical modeling falls into the growing black hole of what Bitcoin\u2019s reach consumes. <\/p>\n

Bitcoin is a space that can be both rational and irrational depending on one’s perspective; exciting and boring; innovative and traditional; as well as uniform and disorganized, concurrently. <\/p>\n

When asked if classical theory can be applied to Bitcoin, the answer is yes and no. Neo-classical theory, the same; systems theory, ditto; and so on. The black hole of Bitcoin has gone beyond demonetizing assets; the space has developed a reality in which opposing realities, perspectives and even a disbelief in the entire existence of the space, can coexist. It is only a matter of time before widespread conversations of Bitcoin infiltrate nearly every aspect of academia, theoretical models included.<\/p>\n

Additional References<\/h2>\n
    \n
  1. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1991). \u201cThe Social Construction Of Reality.\u201d Penguin Books.<\/li>\n
  2. Denhardt, R. & Catlaw, T. (2015). \u201cTheories Of Public Organization.\u201d Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.<\/li>\n
  3. Harmon, M. & Mayer, R. (1986). \u201cOrganization Theory For Public Administration.\u201d Boston: Little, Brown.<\/li>\n
  4. Lewin, K., Heider, F., and Heider, G. M. (1966). \u201cPrinciples Of Topological Psychology.\u201d New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.<\/li>\n
  5. Marx, K. (1996). \u201cDas Kapital\u201d (F. Engels, Ed.). Regnery Publishing.<\/li>\n
  6. Maslow, A. and Frager, R. (1987). \u201cMotivation And Personality.\u201d New York: Harper and Row.<\/li>\n
  7. McGregor, D. (1960). \u201cThe Human Side Of Enterprise.\u201d New York: McGraw-Hill.<\/li>\n
  8. Pestoff, V. (2018). \u201cCo-Production And Public Service Management: Citizenship, Governance And Public Service Management.\u201d New York, NY: Routledge.<\/li>\n
  9. (PDF) \u201cThe Bases Of Social Power.<\/a>\u201d ResearchGate. (n.d.). Retrieved January 12, 2022. <\/li>\n
  10. (PDF) \u201cScientific Management Theory And The Ford Motor Company<\/a>.\u201d (n.d.). Retrieved January 8, 2022, from Shafritz., Shafritz, J., Ott, J. & Jang, Y. (2016). \u201cClassics Of Organization Theory.\u201d Australia Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.<\/li>\n
  11. Strogatz, S. (2015). \u201cNonlinear Dynamics And Chaos: With Applications To Physics, Biology, Chemistry, And Engineering.\u201d Boulder, CO: Westview Press, a member of the Perseus Books Group.<\/li>\n
  12. Taylor, F. (1998). \u201cThe Principles Of Scientific Management.\u201d Mineola, N.Y: Dover Publications.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    This is a guest post by Dr. Riste Simnjanovski. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or <\/em>Bitcoin Magazine.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Bitcoin both fits into and defies all of the major theoretical models developed in recent history, speaking to just how early we are.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2748,"featured_media":6608,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[33],"tags":[2616,59,1364,2615],"class_list":{"0":"post-11878","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-culture","8":"tag-hierarchy-of-needs","9":"tag-opinion","10":"tag-philosophy","11":"tag-theoretical-model"},"author_data":{"id":2748,"name":"Riste Simnjanovski","nicename":"riste-simnjanovski","avatar_url":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/r-simnjanovski-image-96x96.jpg"},"featured_image_url":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/img_7073.png","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11878","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2748"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11878"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11878\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6608"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11878"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11878"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bitcoinmagazine.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11878"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}