Why Changing Your Money Is Harder Than Changing Your Job
Fiat currency is invisible the way gravity is invisible. That's the whole problem.
Think about the last time you stayed in a job longer than you should have. Maybe you knew the role wasn’t right. Maybe the manager had made it clear nothing was going to change. Maybe you’d been there long enough that the commute, the routines, the paycheck — all of it had calcified into something that felt less like a choice and more like a fact of life.
You didn’t stay because you were foolish. You stayed because leaving required three things to line up at once: enough dissatisfaction with where you were, a clear picture of something better on the other side, and the nerve to take a first step. Until all three showed up together, you stayed. Even when you knew, logically, that you shouldn’t.
Changing your money works the same way. Except it’s harder — in ways that are worth understanding.
The Formula Nobody Taught You About Change
A psychologist named Richard Beckhard spent decades studying why organizational change succeeds or fails. He wanted to understand why good information, logical arguments, and even obvious necessity so often failed to move people. What he found wasn’t complicated, but it was clarifying.
He expressed it as a formula: D × V × S > R.
D is dissatisfaction with the current state. V is a vision of something better. S is the first steps — small, concrete, visible actions that make the change feel real. R is resistance — the accumulated weight of inertia, fear, cost, and comfort.
The key is the multiplication. All three variables on the left side must combine to exceed R. If any one of them is zero, the product is zero, and change doesn’t happen. You can be deeply unhappy (high D) but have no idea where you’d go instead (low V) — and nothing moves. You can have a vivid picture of a better future (high V) but can’t bring yourself to take a first step (low S) — and still nothing moves. The formula has to fire on all three cylinders.
This is why information alone almost never changes behavior. Telling someone their habits are damaging doesn’t produce new habits. Explaining that a better option exists doesn’t produce a switch. The formula doesn’t care what you know. It cares whether D, V, and S are each high enough to do their part.
Why People Stay in Jobs They Hate
Most of us have watched someone stay in a situation that looked, from the outside, obviously wrong. A bad job. A bad habit. A financial decision that kept compounding in the wrong direction.
It’s tempting to explain that as a failure of information — if they just knew better, they’d do better. But the formula says otherwise. The more likely explanation is that one or more of D, V, and S was missing. Not enough dissatisfaction, no vision, or the unwillingness to take the initial steps.
The researcher Kurt Lewin described change as having three phases: unfreezing, moving, and refreezing. Before any change can happen, the existing state has to loosen. The way things are has to stop feeling like the way things have to be. That unfreezing is uncomfortable. The status quo, even a bad one, has a kind of solidity to it. It’s known. The alternative is not.
Most people don’t quit a bad job the moment they recognize it’s bad. They quit when the pain of staying finally exceeds the fear of leaving. That threshold is different for everyone, and it rarely arrives on schedule.
The Same Equation — Harder
Changing your employer requires dissatisfaction with one employer.
Changing your money requires dissatisfaction with the entire monetary system — a system that has been the background of every financial decision you have ever made.
That’s a meaningful difference.
Fiat currency is invisible the way gravity is invisible. We don’t notice it because we’ve never lived without it. Nobody alive today has bought groceries with gold. Nobody remembers a world where the dollar wasn’t the anchor. The monetary system isn’t experienced as a system — it’s experienced as reality. And it’s very hard to take action on dissatisfaction perceived as an unchangeable reality.
This is the core problem: Dissatisfaction (D) with the monetary system stays low in the West by default.
Compare that to Nigeria, Turkey, Argentina, or other areas of the developing world. In those places, monetary failure isn’t abstract. Savings evaporate in real time. Prices change visibly from one month to the next. Families who stored their earnings responsibly watch those earnings shrink in purchasing power with no action on their part. D is high because the system is failing in ways people can feel.
This is why Bitcoin adoption moves faster in developing countries. It’s not that people there are smarter or more forward-thinking. It’s that the formula is already working. Their D is high enough.
In the United States, the erosion is real but slower. Wages lag behind asset prices. Rent climbs faster than income. The retirement account looks fine on paper, until you realize that the things it’s supposed to buy have gotten considerably more expensive. The dissatisfaction is accumulating — gradually, and then, for many people, suddenly.
The Vision Problem
Even when D starts to build, change requires somewhere to go. Vision (V) has to be present and clear.
For most people, the mental image of Bitcoin is noise: a volatile asset that made some people rich and others devastated. Something associated with complexity, scams, and a vocabulary that feels designed to exclude. That’s not a vision. That’s friction wearing the shape of a vision.
The actual vision is simpler and more fundamental. A form of money nobody can inflate. Nobody can freeze. Nobody can print more of. A place to store the value of your work that doesn’t quietly drain the way a savings account does. A container that actually holds what you put into it.
When that vision isn’t clear, the formula stalls — even if D has been doing its work. People feel something is wrong without having a coherent picture of what right would look like. They sense the treadmill is speeding up without being able to name where the off switch might be.
That clarity — V — is something that can be built. It’s what honest education is for.
The First Step Problem
The third variable is First Step (S), and this is where even people with enough dissatisfaction and a clear vision often freeze.
The first step toward a new job is uncomfortable, but the shape of it is familiar. Update the resume. Send a message to someone in your network. Schedule a call. The actions are a little awkward, maybe nerve-wracking, but they’re legible. You know what they look like.
The first step with Bitcoin feels alien. Wallets. Seed phrases. Exchanges. Private keys. Custodial versus non-custodial. The vocabulary is unfamiliar in a way that makes the stakes feel high. What if I do this wrong?
But the actual minimum first step is much smaller than all of that suggests. Acquire a few satoshis — the small units, fractions of a full bitcoin. You don’t need to understand the full architecture. You don’t need to master self-custody on day one. You just need a foothold. Something that makes the concept real rather than theoretical.
The first step doesn’t have to be big. It has to be taken.
What This Means — and What It Doesn’t
Nobody can be argued into dissatisfaction. D comes from experience, not persuasion. The erosion has to be felt, not explained.
But D is rising on its own. Housing costs. Stagnant wages. The quiet, persistent gap between what you earn and what things cost. The system is generating dissatisfaction without anyone’s help.
V and S are where clarity can do something. Making the vision legible — what Bitcoin actually is, not what it looks like from the outside — and making the first step feel smaller than it appears: that’s the work.
This isn’t an argument for Bitcoin. It’s a map of why change is hard, and specifically why this change is harder than most. The formula applies whether the change is a job, a habit, or a monetary system. The variables are the same. The threshold is the same. What’s different is the scale of what’s being changed — and the degree to which the current state has been woven into the fabric of daily life.
No one stays in a bad job forever. The costs accumulate. Eventually D × V × S tips the scale, and the move that felt impossible becomes the obvious one.
The same dynamic plays out with money.
For some people, that tipping point has already arrived. For others, D isn’t there yet.
That’s not a judgment. It’s just where they are in the formula.
When the variables line up, change happens fast.
If this framing helped something click, subscribe. Issues like this, every week — free. Or consider becoming a paid subscriber and access the full archives.