Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales said on X that Bitcoin is unlikely to fall to zero, but could drop to below $10,000 by 2050. The post quickly triggered a fierce response across the crypto community, with critics and supporters clashing over whether Bitcoin has failed as money or remains a durable scarce digital asset.
He accepts the network’s resilience, but rejects its economic case
Wales drew a line between Bitcoin’s technical design and its monetary role. He said the system itself is robust and would likely survive unless an unimaginable cryptographic breakdown occurred or the network suffered a large-scale 51% attack. Even in that situation, he argued, the community could keep the chain alive through a hard fork.
His criticism was aimed at Bitcoin’s economic function. Wales said Bitcoin has “completely failed” both as money and as a store of value, and he does not see it becoming the dominant currency of the future. In his view, it is more likely to end up as an enthusiast collectible or a speculative instrument than a core part of mainstream finance.
Old criticisms return: fees, speed and weak everyday use
The remarks are consistent with Wales’ earlier complaints about Bitcoin. He has repeatedly argued that high transaction fees, slow confirmation times and heavy price volatility make it poorly suited for daily payments, especially when compared with conventional banking and payment rails.
In replies to other users, Wales added that Bitcoin still has not reached broad adoption. He pointed to the lack of widespread direct use in everyday life, and said even newer AI bots are not conducting large volumes of transactions in crypto. He also dismissed the significance of institutional inflows, saying those positions look more like speculation than genuine recognition of Bitcoin’s intrinsic value.
Bitcoin supporters answered with charts and lived experience
Bitcoin backers pushed back almost immediately. Some argued that Bitcoin has already shown its value as a digitally scarce asset in a world dealing with inflation pressure. Others posted long-term price charts or screenshots of personal gains to challenge Wales’ view of Bitcoin’s trajectory.
Some users also shared accounts of holding Bitcoin for years and using it in daily life, saying his view no longer reflects how the asset is being used. Another line of criticism focused on the date itself: by choosing 2050, they said, Wales made a forecast that cannot be meaningfully tested any time soon, while sidestepping the current optimism that followed the approval of spot Bitcoin ETFs.