The Kierkegaard frame landed hard for me. There's something structurally similar in how proof-of-work functions psychologically — you do the work, commit it to the chain, and then *let go*. The protocol decides. You can't anxiously revisit it. What's interesting is that Bitcoin makes sovereignty and surrender feel like opposites, but they might be the same motion. You hold your own keys — maximum self-reliance — and yet the system only works because you trust something outside yourself to adjudicate. The leap isn't irrational; it's just the recognition that some things are only stable when they're not purely in your hands. Dostoevsky's point about secular commitments losing their anchor without transcendence is the one I keep returning to. Commitments to justice or creative work are real, but they're commitments *to* something. The question is whether that something can hold its own weight over time, or whether it quietly borrows from a deeper grammar to stay coherent.