Bitcoin's birth couldn't have been perfectly timed.
A whitepaper was quietly published in 2008 as the Great Recession hit and millions of homes were lost to foreclosures. Banks received hundreds billions from government bailouts. This document, which outlined a peer to peer electronic cash system at the time, was not known by anyone. It would go on to change the way people think about money, trust and financial institutions.
Satoshi Nakamoto, who introduced Bitcoin to the world in 2008, had a clear mission: create a P2P decentralized system that is transparent. It was intended to empower individuals through direct transactions that did not involve intermediaries, such as governments or banks. This system could shield users from inflationary policy and central authority control.
Although the idea was revolutionary, it would take many years for its impact to be realized. The rise of cryptocurrencies since Bitcoin's infancy has been rapid. It’s still the OG, but thousands of digital assets have been created, all offering different forms of innovation and alternatives to existing systems. Everyone wants to be a part of the action. The popularity of cryptocurrency has drawn institutional investors, corporations and governments.
The promise was intoxicating – decentralized transactions with no borders, a financial network built by and for the people. We would regain our financial sovereignty by cutting out the middleman. But look around now. It's a gold rush.
The question is: Has the crypto-thing gone off the rails yet? Has the constant pursuit of profit and the desperate attempt to gain mainstream acceptance made the original dream a hollow shell due to the relentless race for profits?
That's what we're here to unpack. In order to write this article, I asked five questions of experts from the crypto industry.
- Have the original goals of financial autonomy and decentralization been overshadowed by the pursuit of profit?
- How far has the focus shifted away from "peer-to-peer electronic cash" You can also find out more about the following: "digital assets" Are there investment vehicles available?
- What has been the impact of the growing involvement of TradFi, institutional investors, and the original vision of decentralized financial systems?
- Has the popularity of scams and rug-pulls undermined the public’s trust in the legitimacy cryptocurrencies?
- What can you do to restore decentralization, financial sovereignty and the original ideals?
This article explores perspectives from various experts. It examines forces that have shaped today’s landscape. Instead of a definitive conclusion we present a rounded view of the ongoing discussion, highlighting different interpretations and suggested solutions.
Profit and speculation vs. Original Goals
Crypto was born from ideals of financial autonomy and decentralization, but has become increasingly a platform for profit-driven speculation. This has led to a notable divergence in the goals that originally fueled its creation. Crypto prices are volatile, which has led to a surge of investors looking for quick profits. This has caused market fluctuations to be driven more by hype than by fundamental value.
The meme coin mania is here!
Dog Wifhat (WIF), also known as “literally just a dog wif a hat,” The price of the dollar peaked at $4.83 per dollar in March 2024. This was a result of speculation. It is now down by over 90%. A trader made $5 million by investing $310. BONK, a meme coin is down 79% since its peak in November 2024. Yes, a trader made a $16,000 deposit into $18,000,000.
What Experts Say
Experts hold differing views on the impact of profit-driven speculation on cryptocurrency's original ideals. Others express concerns about the erosion of decentralization. While some claim it is a catalyst for growth and increases access, others say that it has a positive impact on the cryptocurrency space. The consensus is that the financial motives of the crypto-space have existed since its conception, and evolved along with the technology.
“The debate surrounding profit and speculation's impact on cryptocurrency's original ideals is a complex one, with varied perspectives from industry leaders,” Daniel Polotsky told The Coin Bureau that he is the chairman and founder of CoinFlip. He acknowledges the possibility of deviation from original goals, but frames speculation as an alternative. Need for growth catalyst. “Speculation is a crucial component in expanding the crypto market, and the industry innovation needs funding. While speculation may cause short-term volatility, in the long run, it’s through this process that the strongest companies and projects potentially emerge.”
Joe McCann is of the same opinion, as founder and CEO at crypto hedge fund Asymmetric. He sees speculation in a similar light. Expanding access It is better to protect core principles than undermine them. "Crypto has always been about financial freedom, and part of that is having open markets where people can speculate, invest, and build wealth,' he said, emphasizing the role of open markets in achieving financial freedom.
Extending this point, Thomas Chen, CEO of Mantle's Function, argued that speculation is actively driving the evolution of financial sovereignty. “Bitcoin’s sovereignty is not undermined by financialization; rather, it is reinforced when BTC is not just held, but actively utilized in permissionless, trust-minimized environments,” he said, identifying infrastructure development as the key to realizing this potential.
However, a contrasting view is presented by Daniel Keller, CEO and co-founder of decentralized cloud infrastructure company InFlux Technologies, who expressed concern that the allure of rapid profit has overshadowed the original decentralization goals. “The only thing that moves faster than technology is candlesticks, so it wasn’t long before profit speculation surpassed the progression of blockchain development,” he noted, lamenting the potential neglect of projects with genuine decentralization value.
Shifting to a historical perspective, Andrew Lunardi, head of growth at crypto gaming platform Immutable, acknowledged that Bitcoin's creation stemmed from a reaction to government policy failures during the Great Recession. However, he also pointed out that financial motivations were present from the beginning, referencing Hal Finney's early price speculation. Lunardi concluded that financial motives have always been a component of cryptocurrency, and have just become more apparent over time.
This perspective is further reinforced by Mukarram Majwood, chief investment officer of Blackstone Commodity Group, who argued that “as soon as people recognized the potential for generating multiples in both price and returns, along with substantial increases in value, the focus naturally shifted toward profit and speculation.” He tied this directly to the rise of meme coins, illustrating the continued drive for financial gain.
David Seroy, head of ecosystem at Strata & decentralized bitcoin financial infrastructure company Alpen Labs, acknowledged that profit and speculation have indeed overshadowed the original goals, but he framed this as an inherent part of human nature and Bitcoin's design. He argued that Bitcoin is not a utopian ideal, but a system that thrives on aligned incentives, where "Greed and self-interest don’t make a system bug; they are features that promote sovereignty and decentralization."
Peer-to-Peer Cash vs. Digital Asset Narrative
Bitcoin was conceived as a decentralized, peer-to-peer electronic cash system. The goal? To enable direct transactions between individuals without the need for intermediaries like banks.
Over time, the focus has shifted significantly towards viewing cryptocurrencies as digital assets and investment vehicles.
- Store of Value: Bitcoin’s scarcity (21 million cap) and resilience led to comparisons with “digital gold.”
- Tokenization: Blockchain allows for the fractional ownership of real-world assets (RWAs).
What The Experts Think
Experts across the cryptocurrency sector are split on whether the focus has moved away from simple peer-to-peer transactions. They also diverge on whether this shift to digital assets and investment vehicles is a natural progression or a deviation from Bitcoin's original purpose. Some see stablecoins as a modern fulfillment of that initial vision, and others highlight the role of market forces and institutional influence.
CoinFlip's Polotsky recognizes the continued importance of fiat currency and sees Bitcoin as a hybrid of a growth stock and digital gold. He observes the rise of stablecoins like USDT and USDC as a solution for seamless global transactions. Polotsky believes that as cryptocurrencies mature, they will become more stable, making them more suitable for everyday payments. "Bitcoin is a hybrid between digital gold and a growth stock, but it’s volatility can make it unsuitable for some as their primary exchange medium. Stablecoins such as USDT and USDC are gaining popularity for global transactions."
McCann further challenged the idea that Bitcoin was ever solely intended as peer-to-peer cash. He argued it serves more as a store of value and inflation hedge, noting that the market prioritizes investable digital assets. He uses meme coins and the Solana network to illustrate that crypto has evolved into a cultural and financial phenomenon, and a full-fledged investment ecosystem, rather than a system for everyday transactions.
Building on this, Chen sees Bitcoin's initial role as peer-to-peer cash as a starting point, not its final form. He drew historical parallels, noting that assets typically evolve from stores of value to collateral and then liquidity. "Its evolution into a structured financial asset is not a betrayal of its origins –– it is only a natural progression."
Keller reinforced the idea of a significant shift, noting that DeFi "emerged entirely to bring stock market fundamentals—perpetuals, futures, and derivative contracts—on-chain." While peer-to-peer concepts remain, the scope of investment has broadened considerably, he said.
Lunardi noted a shift towards viewing cryptocurrencies as investment vehicles, partly due to Bitcoin's volatility hindering its use as a medium of exchange. He argued that this volatility has led to Bitcoin being framed more as "Digital gold" He also mentioned stablecoins as potentially fulfilling the peer-to-peer cash vision, although he acknowledged that their fiat backing contradicts the original goal of mitigating sovereign risk.
Majwood underscored this trend, observing a clear shift towards digital assets and investment vehicles, with the original concept of peer-to-peer electronic cash taking a backseat. However, he also noted that peer-to-peer transactions still occur, but with larger sums and higher-net-worth individuals, indicating mainstream adoption.
Seroy sees the shift towards digital assets and investment vehicles as a natural evolution. "People do not spend as much as they think their money will be worth." He highlighted Bitcoin's strength as a global store of value. Seroy clarified that the peer-to-peer cash vision is not dead, but requires further infrastructure and incentives.
Involvement of Institutional Investors And TradFi
The involvement of institutional investors and traditional finance (TradFi) has created a tension with the original, foundational visions.
Institutional investors are rapidly increasing their crypto allocations, with over three-quarters of those polled planning to expand holdings in 2025, according to a survey by Coinbase and EY-Parthenon of 352 institutional investors. They noted increased regulatory clarity as the catalyst.
What The Experts Think
The influx of institutional investors and traditional finance (TradFi) into the cryptocurrency space puts into question the original vision of decentralization. While some experts believe this involvement is a necessary step for global adoption and can even reinforce decentralization, others express concern about the potential dilution of core principles and the introduction of regulatory influence.
Polotsky views institutional involvement as a necessary step for global adoption, even if it slightly reduces decentralization. He argues that widespread participation by institutions and nations can actually reinforce decentralization through game theory, preventing any single entity from controlling the market. "Global adoption compensates for the slight decentralization. Decentralization is not likely to disappear completely if institutions and countries participate." He argues that if over 200 nations and thousands of institutions integrate crypto into their holdings, decentralization will remain intact.
McCann supported this view, emphasizing that institutional involvement scales rather than erodes crypto’s vision. "Crypto remains an open system – institutions are simply legitimizing it," he said, highlighting the increased transparency that TradFi brings to the space and framing it as an alternative, not a replacement.
Chen further refined this perspective, suggesting that institutional participation tests, rather than compromises, decentralization’s resilience. He emphasized that the goal is to integrate Bitcoin into global markets while maintaining its self-sovereignty. "The question isn’t whether institutions should take part, but what conditions they will accept." He contends that the actual danger lies in confining Bitcoin to centralized, opaque structures.
Keller contributed to this narrative by asserting that institutional involvement can actually strengthen the original vision of decentralization by bringing regulation and increased awareness. He believes that as traditional finance players enter the crypto space, they are compelled to adopt its values of privacy and decentralization. He also believes that the presence of these institutions brings in new investors who will hold those institutions accountable to the values of the crypto space.
However, Andrew Lunardi offered a more nuanced view. He described institutional involvement as a "Double-edged Sword." While it has increased legitimacy and spurred regulation, it also clashes with the original Bitcoin vision, which aimed to avoid government and regulatory influence.
Majwood expressed concern that institutional involvement is diluting the original vision of a decentralized system. While acknowledging the positive aspects of increased legitimacy and volume, he expresses concern about the market's growing reliance on ETFs and government actions. He highlights the interference of government regulation. "It’s a good thing, but the crypto community is now heavily dependent on ETFs and Government actions to move prices, which creates volatility and messes up seasonal patterns." He also expressed hope that the market will adapt and find a balance.
Seroy recognized that institutional involvement was inevitable, but warned against the potential for control-oriented practices that undermine decentralization. He believes that "It’s not about keeping them outside; it’s more about making sure they don’t close their escape hatch." emphasizing the importance of preserving the option for freedom.
Scams, Hacks and Public Trust
The proliferation of scams and hacks in the crypto space poses a significant threat to public trust, hindering wider adoption and casting a shadow over the industry's legitimacy.
According to Chainalysis, 2024 saw a drop in value received by illicit cryptocurrency addresses to a total of $40.9 billion. Chainalysis expects this number to rise as it identifies more illicit addresses.
What The Experts Think
The prevalence of scams and fraudulent schemes within the cryptocurrency market has impacted public trust, raising concerns about the legitimacy of digital assets. While some experts argue that these issues are a natural part of an emerging financial system, others highlight the significant damage to investor confidence and the need for robust regulatory measures to restore trust.
CoinFlip's Polotsky acknowledges the problem of scams but insists they don't invalidate the technology. He highlights blockchain's transparency, which can aid law enforcement. He advocates for collaboration between industry leaders, regulators, and consumer advocates to protect users. "Scams and rug-pulls don’t diminish the value or crypto or blockchain. They expose those who exploit it for their own personal gain, by creating a transparent ledger that anyone can see."
Chen took a broader view, saying that the presence of scams is a sign of growth, common in emerging financial systems. He stressed that the industry's response to these issues is crucial, highlighting the move towards regulated stablecoins and institutional-grade custody. “The presence of bad actors isn’t a sign of failure—it’s a sign of growth.”
However, the impact of these scams on public trust is undeniable, as highlighted by Keller of InFlux Technologies. "Legislators use the dangers of rugging to discourage cryptocurrency investment." This, he said, has negatively impacted new projects' ability to gain early traction.
Lunardi echoed this sentiment, asserting that scams and rug pulls have significantly damaged public trust, particularly in areas like NFTs. He said that this is a major factor in the slow adoption of NFTs. He stated that the previous NFT cycle, "still leave a sour taste in most people's mouth despite having utility across a range of different sectors and use cases."
Mukarram acknowledged that scams have been a persistent issue in the crypto space, citing early examples like Mt. Gox and Silk Road. He emphasized that mainstream adoption has amplified the impact of scams, leading to larger market drops and increased volatility. He differentiated between experienced crypto investors, who understand the inherent volatility, and newer investors, who are more easily frightened. “A knowledgeable crypto investor, however, should remain unfazed by these fluctuations, as understanding what you own cultivates confidence in turbulent times,” he said.
Seroy, too, thinks that scams have significantly eroded public trust. He observed a growing divide between ideological builders and speculative elements, and advocated for building credible use cases to restore legitimacy. "Over time, it is hoped this will become a walled-off industry and not be merged under a single umbrella."
Restoring The Original Vision
Restoring the original vision of decentralization and financial sovereignty requires a multifaceted approach. Experts emphasize the importance of education, self-custody, and transparent infrastructure, while also acknowledging the need to adapt to mainstream adoption and mitigate the impact of scams. The path forward involves balancing core principles with practical solutions for a sustainable and inclusive future.
Polotsky stressed the importance of education and self-custody. He said that the "Not your coins, not your keys" adage is key to preserving decentralization and advises diversification of asset storage. "Decentralization and self custody are essential principles to teach new crypto enthusiasts to maintain the history of the industry." He said it is important to "Diversify your asset storage." A balanced approach to crypto security is essential. He cautioned against placing complete trust in any single storage method, whether it's an exchange, fund, or self-custody.
Building on this, Chen defined decentralization as an evolving set of principles, advocating for building a more efficient, transparent, and inclusive alternative to traditional finance. He promoted modular financial infrastructure and transparent, verifiable systems. "Financial sovereignty is not just about keeping Bitcoin outside the system—it’s about ensuring it moves freely within a system that remains open, trustless, and composable."
Keller further emphasized the importance of supporting projects that prioritize financial sovereignty. He called for increased investment in initiatives focusing on fair token launches, user anonymity, and decentralized governance, urging the community to focus on core principles despite the noise of scams and negative headlines.
While acknowledging the challenges, Immutable's Lunardi offered a perspective of long-term optimism. He highlighted the continuing growth of crypto adoption, especially in developing countries. He believed that the current hesitancy will eventually fade as people become more accustomed to the technology, similar to the early days of the internet.
Majwood addressed the evolving nature of decentralization and financial sovereignty. He argued that the original ideals of decentralization are evolving, particularly concerning financial sovereignty. He believes the challenge is to reconcile these ideals with mainstream acceptance, which requires adapting to new market trends and enhancing risk management skills. "Moving forward, it's crucial to find a way to blend the principles of decentralization and financial sovereignty with mainstream acceptance," he concluded.
Seroy emphasized the importance of building practical tools like privacy solutions and self-custody infrastructure. He stressed user responsibility, reiterating the "Not your coins, not your keys" mantra. He concluded that decentralization is protected by ensuring “the tools exist for those who choose freedom.” The best method to achieve this, he said, is to continue to build and support those tools.
Closing Thoughts
So, has crypto lost its way? The answer isn’t a simple yes or no, but rather a "it’s complicated."
What started as a rebellion against centralized power has grown into a sprawling, often contradictory ecosystem. The dream of financial sovereignty still flickers, but it's surrounded by noise from memecoins, institutions, regulatory crackdowns, and yes, scammers and hackers.
And yet, this evolution doesn’t necessarily mean the death of Satoshi's vision. It might just be its messy maturation. Experts think that speculation, for all its chaos, has funded innovation. Institutions, while introducing TradFi dynamics, have also helped legitimize the space. Hacks and scams have shaken trust, but they've also led to better tools, better education, and more informed users.
The path forward isn’t about gatekeeping purity, they said, it's about building resilient infrastructure, championing self-custody, supporting projects that put people first, and ensuring that crypto remains open to anyone, anywhere — not just the whales and the insiders.
The original vision hasn’t disappeared. It’s just been buried under a lot of hype and dollar signs. It’s up to us to dig it back up and shape the next chapter.
Frequently Asked Questions
Everyone talks about "decentralization," but is true decentralization even possible?
“True” Decentralization is not an absolute, but a spectrum. It is extremely difficult, if it’s not impossible, to achieve perfect, universally distributed controls. The pursuit of greater centralization is still vital. We can strive for systems with greater resistance to single-point failures, censorship and control. This includes fostering diverse participation of nodes, promoting open source development, and creating robust governance mechanisms.
What other areas of crypto still adhere to the original principles?
Bitcoin is still the most popular cryptocurrency, but several other areas are pushing for financial sovereignty and decentralization. Decentralized finance projects (DeFi), such as the one described above, aim to recreate traditional services in an open and transparent manner. The use of privacy-focused technologies and coins is crucial to empower users with their financial data.
Also, decentralized autonomous organisations (DAOs), which are experiment with new governance models, give communities greater control over funds and projects.
How can a person protect themselves in the crypto-space from scams?
Due diligence must be done. Verify the legitimacy of the project or platform first. Search for active communities and transparent teams. Second, do not believe promises of guaranteed returns. “get rich quick” schemes. Third, know the technology. Learn about private keys, self-custody and the associated risks with different wallets. Do not be afraid to seek out information and ask questions.
