Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates has softened his tone on bitcoin as an investment, but he remains deeply skeptical of cryptocurrency as a broader technological development. In two separate interviews, Gates said he does not hold bitcoin and is not betting against it either, describing his current position as neutral. At the same time, he argued that cryptocurrency, as it works today, enables certain forms of criminal activity and is not necessarily an innovation the world needs.
Speaking to CNBC, Gates was asked about bitcoin in the context of climate change, particularly the heavy energy use associated with digital mining. His answer was notably restrained compared with some of his earlier remarks. “I don’t own bitcoin. I’m not short bitcoin. So, I’ve taken a neutral view,” he said. Rather than making a directional call, Gates emphasized that bitcoin’s price can swing sharply based on market mania and changing sentiment, and he said he has no reliable way to predict where that process will lead.
That statement marks a meaningful shift in tone. Gates has long been viewed as a skeptic of bitcoin, and his prior comments were far more dismissive. In earlier discussions, he grouped bitcoin with speculative assets that do not produce anything on their own and therefore should not be expected to rise in value simply because they exist. His latest remarks do not amount to an endorsement, but they do suggest a move away from open hostility toward a more detached, wait-and-see posture.
A More Neutral View on Bitcoin as an Asset
Gates’ neutrality appears to be narrowly defined around bitcoin as an investment vehicle rather than as a social or monetary project. In the CNBC interview, he made clear that he is not participating in the market on either side. That is a notable contrast with his comments from 2018, when he said bitcoin was an asset class that produced nothing and compared it to a “greater fool theory” investment. At the time, he even remarked that he would short it if there were an easy way to do so.
The price backdrop makes that historical comparison especially striking. According to the source material, bitcoin was trading at around $9,300 when Gates made those earlier comments. By the time this report was written, it had climbed to $56,805, representing a gain of nearly 511%. Even so, Gates did not use the rally as a basis for a bullish turn. Instead, he framed bitcoin as a highly sentiment-driven asset whose path remains difficult to forecast.
That perspective reflects a common view among traditional investors and technologists who see bitcoin’s volatility as a central challenge. For Gates, the problem does not seem to be merely that bitcoin rises and falls; it is that those moves can be heavily influenced by crowd psychology, hype cycles, and shifting narratives rather than cash flow, productivity, or other more conventional valuation anchors.
Support for Digital Payments, Not for Anonymous Systems
Even while distancing himself from bitcoin speculation, Gates acknowledged that digitizing money and reducing transaction costs can be socially valuable. He pointed to the work of the Gates Foundation in developing countries, where digital financial infrastructure can improve access and efficiency. But he drew a clear distinction between those systems and the way many cryptocurrencies operate today.
According to Gates, the digital payment tools he supports are built with reversibility and transparency in mind. He said those systems are designed so that transactions can be reversed and so there is full visibility into who is doing what. In his view, that makes them suitable for expanding financial access without opening the door to tax evasion or illegal activity. This is a key part of his critique: he is not rejecting digital finance in principle, but objecting to architectures that make oversight difficult.
That distinction helps explain why Gates can simultaneously acknowledge the benefits of digitized money while criticizing cryptocurrency. To him, the issue is less about whether finance becomes more digital and more about what kinds of controls, identity checks, and enforcement mechanisms are built into the system.
Why Gates Says the World May Not Need Cryptocurrency
Gates was even more direct in a separate interview with The Wall Street Journal. Asked to name one technological innovation the world would be better off without, he answered that the way cryptocurrency works today allows for certain criminal activities and that getting rid of that would be a good thing. The comment underscores a long-standing concern among critics of crypto: that pseudonymous or lightly supervised systems can facilitate illicit finance.
Although Gates did not elaborate in detail in the quoted material, his broader argument is clear. If a financial technology makes it easier for bad actors to move value outside normal compliance structures, then whatever innovation it brings may be outweighed by the risks it creates. His concern is not framed primarily as a market or investor issue, but as a question of social utility and public safety.
He did, however, immediately qualify the remark by saying he probably should have answered bioweapons, calling that a truly bad technology the world should not have. That caveat slightly softens the force of his anti-crypto line, but it does not erase the substance of his criticism. Even with the clarification, Gates’ view remains that cryptocurrency in its current form poses enough problems to merit serious concern.
From Bitcoin Bear to Crypto Critic
The evolution in Gates’ language is important. On bitcoin specifically, he appears to have moved from an openly bearish stance to a neutral one. On cryptocurrency as a category, however, he remains critical. That creates a more nuanced picture than a simple reversal. He is no longer actively arguing for a short position on bitcoin, but he is still questioning whether crypto systems, as currently structured, deliver enough legitimate public value to justify their risks.
This kind of split view is increasingly common among establishment figures. Some are willing to concede that bitcoin has become too large and too resilient to dismiss outright as a passing fad. Yet they remain unconvinced that the broader crypto ecosystem has solved the trust, compliance, and governance issues that mainstream institutions care about. Gates’ comments fit squarely into that middle ground: less dismissive of market reality, but still unconvinced by the ideological promises around crypto.
Microsoft’s Crypto-Related Patent Adds an Interesting Contrast
The report also notes an intriguing detail: Microsoft has been granted a patent for a cryptocurrency system using body activity data. The patent describes a crypto-mining approach that could use human activities, including brain waves and body heat, when users perform online tasks such as using search engines, interacting with chatbots, or reading advertisements.
That mention introduces a notable contrast. Gates personally questions the value of cryptocurrency as currently implemented, yet crypto-related experimentation has still appeared within Microsoft’s broader innovation pipeline. The patent does not imply endorsement by Gates himself, nor does it change the substance of his comments, but it highlights how major technology companies may continue exploring blockchain- or crypto-adjacent systems even when high-profile leaders express reservations about the sector.
It also reflects a broader truth about technology development: corporate research often advances on multiple fronts at once, regardless of whether every line of experimentation ultimately becomes a product, a strategy, or a public priority. A patent is not the same as a deployment, but its existence shows that crypto-related concepts remain part of mainstream technology exploration.
The Broader Meaning of Gates’ Remarks
Overall, Gates’ comments illustrate a position that is more calibrated than before. He is no longer presenting himself as a straightforward bitcoin bear. Instead, he is stepping back from making a price call and admitting that he does not have a strong predictive edge. But he is also refusing to treat cryptocurrency as an unqualified innovation story. In his view, the core concerns around crime, accountability, and system design have not been resolved.
For the crypto industry, that matters because Gates remains one of the world’s most influential technology voices. His opinion may not move markets on its own, but it reflects the skepticism still held by many mainstream business, policy, and philanthropic leaders. Their central question is not simply whether crypto prices can rise, but whether crypto systems can be made compatible with transparency, regulation, and broad social benefit.
That leaves Gates in a position that is neither fully hostile nor meaningfully supportive. On bitcoin, he is neutral. On cryptocurrency as a societal innovation, he is still doubtful. And in a market often framed in terms of believers versus critics, that combination may be one of the clearest signs of how the debate around digital assets has matured.