Being Used Is Not the Same as Being Chosen




Adoption figures are treated as verdicts. More users, more transactions, more volume — the thing is winning.

But usage has two very different causes, and they produce identical numbers.

Some things get used because they are better. Some things get used because everything else is unavailable. Only one of those is durable, and no adoption chart distinguishes between them.

Adoption by Preference, Adoption by Exclusion

Preference is what most analysis assumes. Someone compared the options, found this one better — cheaper, faster, more convenient — and switched. If a competitor improves, the choice is revisited. If not, the user stays. Demand of this kind erodes slowly and defends itself.

Exclusion is different. The user did not prefer this. They were blocked from the alternative — by sanction, regulation, capital controls, distance, a broken relationship, an unavailable licence, a system that will not process them. So they used the thing that was still open.

That demand is entirely real. It settles transactions and shows up in volumes exactly as preference demand does.

And it has a property preference demand does not: it disappears the moment the blockage is removed. Not gradually. Not with loyalty effects. It disappears because it was never a choice.

The Reason a Thing Is Adopted Is Usually Reported Backwards

When a party under restrictions starts using an alternative rail — a currency, a network, a settlement system — the coverage tends to describe it as validation. A serious participant chose this. The thesis is confirmed.

The likelier explanation is duller. They did not select it against alternatives. They were left with it after the alternatives closed.

That distinction matters because it inverts the forecast. If usage came from preference, more of the same conditions produce more usage. If usage came from exclusion, then anything that improves the excluded party's access destroys the demand — and improved access is usually what everyone involved is working toward.

Which produces the awkward conclusion: this category of adoption is strongest exactly when the underlying situation is worst, and it fades as things get better. It is a demand stream that is short the resolution of its own cause.

It is also, structurally, the mirror image of profit collecting wherever the work is still difficult. There, a business earns while a problem remains hard. Here, a business earns while a door remains shut. Both are real positions, and both are held at the pleasure of something the business does not control.

How to Tell Which Kind You Are Looking At

Three questions separate them, and none requires forecasting anything.

What was the alternative, and why is it not being used? If the answer is "it costs more" or "it is slower," that is preference. If the answer is "they are not permitted to," that is exclusion.

Would the user switch back if the blockage lifted? Ask it plainly. For preference demand, the answer is usually no — the switching cost has already been paid and the thing works. For exclusion demand, the answer is almost always yes, immediately.

And is the usage concentrated in the excluded population? Preference adoption spreads. Exclusion adoption clusters exactly where the constraint binds, and stops at its edge. A usage map that matches a restriction map is not describing a product advantage — it is describing a route that exists because the ordinary one is closed.

Why the Distinction Costs Money

If both kinds of demand look identical in the data, the practical consequence is that they get valued identically — and they should not be.

Preference demand deserves a multiple. It is expected to persist, to compound, to survive competition. Exclusion demand deserves something much closer to a stream with a termination clause attached, because that is what it is.

But the reported metrics — users, transaction volume, revenue — do not carry a field for why. So an excluded-user business and a preferred-product business with identical numbers get discussed in the same language and, frequently, priced in the same range.

The correction, when it comes, arrives as a collapse rather than a decline, because the constraint does not soften gradually. A licence is granted, a restriction lifts, a route reopens, and the demand is simply gone in a quarter. Nothing degraded. The reason ended.

This is also the reader-facing half of the idea. Look at what you personally use, and sort it: the tools chosen after comparing, and the ones you use because your employer mandates it, because it is the only provider in your area, because switching would mean a week of admin. Both feel like habits. Only one of them is a preference, and the difference becomes visible on the day the barrier drops.

What This Looks Like From Korea

Korea runs a long-standing, well-documented example of exclusion pricing, and it is worth understanding because it is so often misread as enthusiasm.

Domestic cryptocurrency prices have frequently traded above prices on overseas exchanges — a gap known locally as the kimchi premium. The intuitive explanation is that Korean investors are unusually keen.

The structural explanation is more precise, and it is about arbitrage being blocked rather than demand being high.

In an ordinary market, a persistent price gap between two venues cannot survive. Someone buys where it is cheap, sells where it is expensive, and the difference closes within minutes. That correction requires the ability to move money and assets freely across the border in both directions.

Here, that path is heavily constrained. Foreign participation in domestic exchanges is restricted, and moving foreign currency out to buy on overseas venues runs into foreign-exchange rules, with unauthorised versions treated as illegal currency transfer. The arbitrage that would erase the gap is, in practice, not available.

So the premium is not a measure of how much Koreans want the asset. It is a measure of how hard it is to arbitrage — the price of a friction, expressed as if it were the price of an asset.

The confirmation comes from the other direction. As oversight tightened following the introduction of a domestic virtual-asset user protection framework in 2024, the extreme gaps of previous cycles — at times reported in the tens of percent — became harder to sustain. The demand did not change character. The plumbing did.

Read as an adoption signal, the premium said Korea loved the asset. Read correctly, it said Korea could not easily trade against the rest of the world — which is a fact about capital movement, not about conviction.

What This Page Used to Say

This URL previously held a post about a state charging tolls for passage through a shipping route and accepting cryptocurrency as payment, and nearly all of it has been removed.

It named the states and officials involved, described ceasefire conditions and preconditions, quoted a head of government's warning about renewed strikes, and relayed toll terms. It carried prediction-market probabilities, exchange-traded fund flow figures, price levels for several digital assets, technical support and resistance levels, and an analyst firm's threshold for confirming a new market phase. It closed with instructions about diversification, position sizing and when the "playbook changes."

The conflict material is not this blog's to relay, and the closing section is advice.

What survives is one sentence, which was the best observation in the piece and was stated in passing:

It did not adopt the asset because it believes in decentralisation. It adopted it because the ordinary payment system would not process it.

That is a complete description of exclusion demand, it applies to every technology that gets adopted at a border rather than by preference, and it does not require naming anyone.

Where This Stops Being Useful

Exclusion demand is real demand. It clears transactions, it moves prices, and while the constraint holds it is entirely dependable. The point is about durability, not legitimacy.

The two kinds mix. A product can be adopted under duress and then genuinely preferred once people have used it — the constraint gets people through the door and the product keeps them. Distinguishing them at the margin is difficult.

And this predicts nothing about direction. Constraints can tighten as easily as they loosen, and some persist for decades — which is the same limitation as knowing that a chokepoint's leverage is finite without knowing when it ends.

Where You Are Standing

Ask what the alternative was. For any adoption story, name the option the user did not take, and find out whether it was rejected or unavailable. That single fact reclassifies the entire number.

Treat a premium as a possible friction price. When something trades higher in one place than another and the gap persists, the first hypothesis is not enthusiasm. It is that something is preventing the trade that would close it — the same reason a figure can describe a rule rather than a measurement.

And notice when a demand source is short its own resolution. Some revenue streams depend on a problem continuing. They are worth holding with a clear head about what would end them, because the thing that ends them is usually what everybody involved is trying to achieve — much as a metal's price follows the use it is put to rather than the category it is sold under.

A Closing Note

There is a comfortable way to read an adoption number, which is as a running total of people who looked at the options and picked this one.

Some of them did. Some of them were standing in front of a locked door with one path still open, and they took it, and they were counted the same way.

Both walked through. Only one of them chose.

Data as of 2026-08-22. Sources: Korean market commentary on the domestic cryptocurrency price premium and its attribution to restricted cross-border arbitrage, including limits on foreign participation and foreign-exchange rules affecting overseas purchases, and reporting that extreme premium levels became harder to sustain following the 2024 introduction of a domestic virtual-asset user protection framework. This post describes demand composition in general terms and is not a view on any asset, company or security. This post is observation, not investment advice.

Related Posts:

Finding a Substitute Is Not the Same as Switching to One

You Were Paying for Access, Not for the Asset

Supply Doesn't Vanish. It Becomes Unreachable.

A Metal's Price Follows Its Use, Not Its Name

A Layer Only Earns While It Is Hard

Visuals on this post are AI-generated. The author works with AI as a research and drafting assistant; topics, judgments, and final edits are the author's own. This post is observation, not investment advice. See full Disclaimer for details.

Popular posts from this blog

SK Hynix's ADR Listing — The Split That Isn't a Split

Image
A stock can be expensive in two very different ways. It can be expensive because the business is overvalued — the price has run ahead of what the company is worth. Or it can simply look expensive because a single share is a large object, a big ticket a smaller investor has to swallow whole. Those are not the same problem, and they do not have the same solution. SK Hynix is now handling the second kind in the United States, and the tool it is using looks, at a glance, like a stock split. It is not one. Understanding why is a small lesson in how one country's shares actually get plumbed into another's market. The reframe — the wrapper changed, not the share In Seoul, SK Hynix trades as common stock under the code 000660. According to the company's SEC filing, a single common share was referenced at 2,425,000 won — roughly $1,581 at the filing's exchange rate. That is a large amount to pay for one share, and it is exactly the kind of number that keeps smaller U.S. buyer...
Read more

Is the Petrodollar Dying? The "Iran War" and the Irony of the Dollar Index

Image
The headlines have been loud all year: "The Era of the Petroyuan is Here." As the conflict between the U.S., Israel, and Iran unfolded, Deutsche Bank and other Wall Street institutions warned that the decades-old dominance of the petrodollar was finally fracturing. The story is compelling, and parts of it are true. But the market data from the crisis told a stranger story than the headlines did. This post first ran in late March, at the height of the Iran conflict. Two months later, with a U.S.–Iran ceasefire reportedly in its final stages, the picture has shifted — and the central paradox it described has, if anything, become clearer. So this is an expansion, updated with where the dollar actually stands as of late May. The Petroyuan Reality Check It is true that sanctioned nations — Russia, Iran, Venezuela — have increasingly turned to the Chinese yuan (CNY) or the UAE dirham (AED) to bypass U.S. sanctions. Saudi Arabia has experimented with China's cross-border dig...
Read more

How to Protect Your Wealth in 2026: The Hidden Trap of Inflation

Image
You may have done everything right. Saved diligently. Lived below your means. Kept money in the bank where it felt safe. And still, the house you could have bought ten years ago has quietly moved out of reach. That is not a failure of effort. It is the hidden trap of inflation — and in 2026, the trap is open wider than it has been in years. This post first ran in March. Two months of data have since made its central point harder to argue with, not easier. So this is an expansion, updated with the numbers that have arrived since — including an inflation reading that surprised to the upside as recently as late May. Is Your Money Quietly Losing Ground? The honest framing is not dramatic. It is arithmetic. A dollar held as cash earns whatever your savings account pays. If inflation runs faster than that yield, the real value of the dollar shrinks even while the number in your account stays the same or grows slowly. During the post-COVID era of zero interest rates, this was easy to se...
Read more