Yes. A scam now green lighted by the President to personally enrich himself. You would never say such a thing plainly though, that would undermine your whole shtick of reverse engineering the regime’s obviously incoherent economic and financial policies.
You’re conflating political distrust with the technology itself. Criticizing politicians or opportunists who attach themselves to crypto is fair, but that doesn’t automatically make blockchain or digital assets a scam. By that logic, every market influenced by wealthy insiders — stocks, real estate, banking, even government bonds — would also be scams.
The reality is that crypto exists because many people lost trust in centralized financial systems long before politicians started talking about it. Some projects are absolutely fraudulent, but dismissing the entire space ignores the real-world innovation happening in payments, decentralized finance, tokenized assets, and global value transfer. Skepticism is healthy. Blanket cynicism usually just closes the door to understanding.
The reality is that by far the most prevalent use of crypto is for speculation and money-laundering. There are no widespread, legitimate real-world uses for crypto, and the only ones that do exist are tied to the value of traditional currencies (stablecoins). The volatility of cryptocurrencies make them an unreliable store of value and means of exchange.
Regardless of whatever quibbles people may have with centralized financial systems, crypto’s flaws greatly outweigh them. Crypto is a solution looking for a problem, and a gift to the corrupt and criminal.
Exactly, I have yet to see cryptocurrency which provides clear added value to its holder. The only ones which do so far are those piggybacking value from existing financial system. Like stablecoins or tokenized RWA. Everything else is useless so far, the only reason to hold them is having libertarian fantasies of bad central banks and good Gold Standard or speculation.
A more accurate way to look at crypto is through ownership and protection of value, not just speculation.
Crypto gives individuals direct ownership of assets through private keys no bank, no intermediary, and no risk of account freezing based on institutional decisions. That changes the basic model from “permission-based access” to self-custody ownership.
It also improves protection in certain contexts: transactions are secured by cryptography, settlement is irreversible once confirmed, and assets can be held independently of any single government or financial institution’s control. That matters especially in places where banking systems are unstable or restrictive.
This doesn’t mean crypto replaces banks or eliminates risk. But it does introduce a new model where people can truly own and control digital value, rather than just hold it through a third party.
So the real shift isn’t “crypto vs banks”..,it’s custodial control vs direct ownership of assets.
Fair enough, but what is the problem this is trying to solve? If OFAC has sanctioned you, I can understand why you would want to avoid permission-based access, but what is the use case for the average consumer?
And the benefits need to be weighed against the cost of anonymity (e.g. large-scale corruption like with Trumpcoin, or laundering of drug money or money to facilitate terrorism).
Oren - no mention or even guesses as to why the politicians began supporting it? money talks. crypto bros invested huge in candidates who promised to do their bidding. e.g. cryptocurrency industry spent over $40 million to defeat Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown in the 2024 election, through the Fairshake super PAC, viewing him as a critic of digital assets; part of a broader $130 million national push, helped elect Republican Bernie Moreno, a crypto-friendly candidate.
Lobbying influence in politics isn’t unique to crypto though — pharma, banking, defense, oil, and big tech have spent decades shaping regulation through donations and PACs. If political money alone proves an industry is illegitimate, then we’d have to dismiss most of the modern economy.
What matters is separating political behavior from the underlying technology. Blockchain, cryptography, and decentralized systems still have legitimate applications regardless of who funds campaigns. Ironically, post-quantum cryptography is becoming a serious topic precisely because governments, banks, and security institutions recognize that digital infrastructure and cryptographic systems matter long term. The existence of bad actors or political opportunism doesn’t invalidate the technology itself — it just proves power follows innovation and capital, as it always has.
So, what function does crypto serve? It is a "currency"? It acts like money in certain ways. Is it better than what we now use? The short answer is no. As a currency two things distinguish it from the status quo. It is largely unregulated and it is difficult to monitor and trace. It also requires the internet to function at all and the energy costs of using it are extremely high. It's not entirely clear who bears those energy costs in the end. The fact that it is "untraceable" is supremely useful... to criminals. The fact that it is unregulated is supremely useful... to scammers.
Credit cards seemed to provide some level of convenience to buyers and sellers. But more and more small businesses are recognizing the reality of 3% transaction costs, which are truly obscene, and either charge that directly to the customer or offer a discount for Not using a credit card. It seems ridiculous that we, consumers and citizens, have let the financial sector leech profits off of basic buying and selling. Like cash, electronic transactions should be "nationalized". They should be part of the basic Federal infrastructure. We should pay the actual cost of implementing that system and No More. Actual credit is the purview of banks, not transaction fees for de facto currency.
Could blockchain be used in such a system to the benefit of honest legal business and financial transactions? And would it be worth the energy expense and the subsequent vulnerability of internet failure? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. Crypto seems like an additional avenue to fleece consumers. But nobody seems to be looking at the possibility of ending legal entrenched leeching of wealth through excessive privatized transaction costs. And no one will until voters, and not Big Money interests, control our democracy.
You’re raising valid concerns, especially about predatory transaction fees and the concentration of financial power. But I think you’re overlooking that crypto and blockchain emerged partly as a reaction to those exact frustrations. For many people, the appeal was never “untraceable crime money” — it was the idea of peer-to-peer value transfer without layers of intermediaries extracting fees from every transaction.
Also, “untraceable” is often overstated. Most major blockchains are actually public ledgers where transactions are permanently recorded and far more transparent than cash. Law enforcement has successfully tracked illicit activity on-chain many times precisely because blockchain leaves a trail.
On the energy issue, that criticism mainly applies to older proof-of-work systems like Bitcoin. A large part of the industry has already shifted toward far more energy-efficient consensus models. The technology is evolving quickly, just like the internet did in its early inefficient stages.
Ironically, your idea of low-cost national digital payment infrastructure is not necessarily anti-blockchain — it could eventually incorporate blockchain principles, cryptographic verification, or even post-quantum cryptography for future security resilience. The real debate shouldn’t be “crypto good” or “crypto bad.” It should be about how to build transparent, low-cost, secure financial systems that reduce rent-seeking while preserving freedom, privacy, and resilience.
Yes, I agree, a real-time, no-fee, national payment system for the U.S. Dollar would end this nonsense about Stablecoins. Look over at Medium for a proposal for such a system:
A real-time, no-fee USD payment system would definitely reduce the appeal of stablecoins, especially for everyday transactions.
But it wouldn’t eliminate the underlying demand for programmable, borderless, or interoperable digital money.
The bigger issue isn’t “crypto vs no crypto” — it’s whether future payment systems, public or private, are built with strong cryptographic security (including post-quantum readiness), transparency, and resilience against failure and abuse.
Whether it's a scam can be debated. But Don's use of crypto to enrich himself at the expense of the national interest cannot be. The pardon case of CZ alone is disgusting, given his conviction for laundering money for Hamas, ISIS, and other terrorist groups. Meanwhile, establishment elites like Oren and R senators remain silent. Nothing to see here... This is astounding to me. Imagine if Obama or W had sold American interests down the river for a few billion... Crypto corruption has proven to be Don's most lucrative career endeavor, outpacing the original leaders-inheritance and being a game show host.
Not clear if you are admiring his feats with a back-handed compliment or trying to insult him. I personally do not think of him as a master-mind .. just a salesman to who happened along to tap into a zeitgest that he does not fully understand .. he just responds and takes his direction from the crowd .. which worked well enough (Bless you Trump for me not having to strip or have my bag of sex toys - okay, just a laptop - rummaged through on my last two trips through the airport) until he stopped being exposed to that crowd .. and of course he is now getting truly old.
It's pretty doggone delicious watching maga and the "new" right defend Don's corruption:). The same people who were apoplectic when just the son of our former prez traded on his famous last name to pocket a few hundred grand selling bad art. Unseemly and wrong? Indeed. But now, as the actual sitting prez sells American interests down the river for billions dumped directly into his pocket, they lap it up. Even when he pardons Chinese crypto criminals, or accepts cash tributes from foreign interests. I gotta hand it to Don, he's a doggone good flimflam man. His flock chants his slogans (America first, drain the swamp, etc) while Don pockets the loot.
Don's character, or lack thereof, has been on display for years. But it's helpful when he exposes the same in the long-ruling establishment elites of the "new" right.
Isn't it time for a new "new" right? The current version has become stale, lost its focus, and collapsed into a cult of the dear leader.
Greed and corruption are the forces behind the political support for cryptocurrency. What is needed is a national real-time payment system for the U.S. dollar. No one would be taking stable-coins seriously if a “no fee” real-time payment system for the U.S. dollar was available. No fee means the merchants would not pay a fee or any percentage of the transaction for using the system.
Like transporting products over the national interstate highway system without paying a toll, America needs a payments highway that connects all buyers and sellers in real-time. Like cash, but cash that is deposited directly into the sellers account in real-time 7/24/365
Geez, Oren. I hate it when I have to agree with you. Look at the structure of any crypto currency, its value is completely determined in the moment by what the next buyer is willing to pay. There are no underlying fundamentals like cash flow or book value. That’s the very definition of a Ponzi Scheme or multi-level marketing, both of which are scams.
A dollar bill is a piece of paper. One that for some bizarre reason, one cannot even exchange for a bit of gold, the very reason we accepted this coupon as legal tender. Bait and Switch of the century.
You had it right the first time .. historically strong. That said, it is also the reason we must all continue to BELIEVE in it, else it goes up in a puff of smoke, as did the penny.
Well, no. First, sorry about the mixup, autocorrect did that. Second, originally, the dollar could be exchanged for a chunk of gold. Theoretically, the British Pound can still be exchanged for sterling. Good luck doing that, though.
In fact, though, my daughter got it right when in high school, she sarcastically answered the question: “What is money?” with “A figment of everyone’s imagination.” Even gold holds value only because people believe it does. Look at your original statement: why should a chunk of gold be worth more than paper? Only because people want it to, so no bait and switch.
If you want to exchange your dollars for gold you are free to buy gold with your dollars. The value of gold is measured in dollars. The value dollars is not measured by gold. The intrinsic value of the dollar is the backing of the U.S. government. Inflation is a political issue, a failure of Congress to stop deficit spending.
Well, yes. (And yes the Federal Reserve Bank system probably did help unleash the 20th century acceleration of wealth creation and technological progress .. but that tapping of unrealized wealth .. of unlaid golden eggs, is now killing the goose. But that is beyond my ability to even explain, much less effect.)
The poll question, and the article, fail to distinguish Bitcoin and its successors from stablecoins.
The former might one day become useful and are relatively harmless. Stablecoins, by contrast, are a huge deal and a danger to most of us. I have not yet figured out all the ways in which they pick our collective pockets, but I note that the Trump dynasty has passed the GENIUS act and made buckets of money since.
Aficionados always tell me that the important thing about it is that it isn't a fiat currency subject to inflation at the whim of the government. But it seems to me that if this were really the selling point, the price of bread in bitcoin should be constant.
The future of crypto are the stable coins linked to the dollar and backed by $Billions in US Treasuries.. You get all the advantages of the blockchain in encryption, transparency and ease of transacting and settlement - but you dont get the wild swings of currencies like Bitcoin that have no intrinsic value. Stablecoins could eventually use blockchain technology to take out the credit card middlemen that charge 3% to settle many of our transactions today. Even the criminal activity that is a core use of crypto is better served by stable coins. Very badly researched piece to not mention the promise of stable coins and to focus only on the currencies created out of thin air which I agree dont make sense.
There is a degree of multi or duplicative regulation of the banking industry. Nonetheless, since the Great Depression, the banking industry has held up very well including the Great Recession and the collapse of SVB. The Crypto industry is hardly regulated and if it is allowed to pay interest, I think we will see a return to Andrew Jackson. If they pay interest and lend money, who will oversee credit quality?
Cryptocurrency itself isn’t inherently a scam — it’s a technology and financial system. The real issue is that scams, hype, and bad actors often attach themselves to it, just like they do in every emerging industry. There’s a difference between criticizing fraudulent projects and dismissing the entire space altogether. Blockchain has legitimate use cases, but it also requires regulation, transparency, and informed participation to separate innovation from speculation.
Yes. A scam now green lighted by the President to personally enrich himself. You would never say such a thing plainly though, that would undermine your whole shtick of reverse engineering the regime’s obviously incoherent economic and financial policies.
You’re conflating political distrust with the technology itself. Criticizing politicians or opportunists who attach themselves to crypto is fair, but that doesn’t automatically make blockchain or digital assets a scam. By that logic, every market influenced by wealthy insiders — stocks, real estate, banking, even government bonds — would also be scams.
The reality is that crypto exists because many people lost trust in centralized financial systems long before politicians started talking about it. Some projects are absolutely fraudulent, but dismissing the entire space ignores the real-world innovation happening in payments, decentralized finance, tokenized assets, and global value transfer. Skepticism is healthy. Blanket cynicism usually just closes the door to understanding.
The reality is that by far the most prevalent use of crypto is for speculation and money-laundering. There are no widespread, legitimate real-world uses for crypto, and the only ones that do exist are tied to the value of traditional currencies (stablecoins). The volatility of cryptocurrencies make them an unreliable store of value and means of exchange.
Regardless of whatever quibbles people may have with centralized financial systems, crypto’s flaws greatly outweigh them. Crypto is a solution looking for a problem, and a gift to the corrupt and criminal.
Exactly, I have yet to see cryptocurrency which provides clear added value to its holder. The only ones which do so far are those piggybacking value from existing financial system. Like stablecoins or tokenized RWA. Everything else is useless so far, the only reason to hold them is having libertarian fantasies of bad central banks and good Gold Standard or speculation.
A more accurate way to look at crypto is through ownership and protection of value, not just speculation.
Crypto gives individuals direct ownership of assets through private keys no bank, no intermediary, and no risk of account freezing based on institutional decisions. That changes the basic model from “permission-based access” to self-custody ownership.
It also improves protection in certain contexts: transactions are secured by cryptography, settlement is irreversible once confirmed, and assets can be held independently of any single government or financial institution’s control. That matters especially in places where banking systems are unstable or restrictive.
This doesn’t mean crypto replaces banks or eliminates risk. But it does introduce a new model where people can truly own and control digital value, rather than just hold it through a third party.
So the real shift isn’t “crypto vs banks”..,it’s custodial control vs direct ownership of assets.
Fair enough, but what is the problem this is trying to solve? If OFAC has sanctioned you, I can understand why you would want to avoid permission-based access, but what is the use case for the average consumer?
And the benefits need to be weighed against the cost of anonymity (e.g. large-scale corruption like with Trumpcoin, or laundering of drug money or money to facilitate terrorism).
Oren - no mention or even guesses as to why the politicians began supporting it? money talks. crypto bros invested huge in candidates who promised to do their bidding. e.g. cryptocurrency industry spent over $40 million to defeat Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown in the 2024 election, through the Fairshake super PAC, viewing him as a critic of digital assets; part of a broader $130 million national push, helped elect Republican Bernie Moreno, a crypto-friendly candidate.
Lobbying influence in politics isn’t unique to crypto though — pharma, banking, defense, oil, and big tech have spent decades shaping regulation through donations and PACs. If political money alone proves an industry is illegitimate, then we’d have to dismiss most of the modern economy.
What matters is separating political behavior from the underlying technology. Blockchain, cryptography, and decentralized systems still have legitimate applications regardless of who funds campaigns. Ironically, post-quantum cryptography is becoming a serious topic precisely because governments, banks, and security institutions recognize that digital infrastructure and cryptographic systems matter long term. The existence of bad actors or political opportunism doesn’t invalidate the technology itself — it just proves power follows innovation and capital, as it always has.
So, what function does crypto serve? It is a "currency"? It acts like money in certain ways. Is it better than what we now use? The short answer is no. As a currency two things distinguish it from the status quo. It is largely unregulated and it is difficult to monitor and trace. It also requires the internet to function at all and the energy costs of using it are extremely high. It's not entirely clear who bears those energy costs in the end. The fact that it is "untraceable" is supremely useful... to criminals. The fact that it is unregulated is supremely useful... to scammers.
Credit cards seemed to provide some level of convenience to buyers and sellers. But more and more small businesses are recognizing the reality of 3% transaction costs, which are truly obscene, and either charge that directly to the customer or offer a discount for Not using a credit card. It seems ridiculous that we, consumers and citizens, have let the financial sector leech profits off of basic buying and selling. Like cash, electronic transactions should be "nationalized". They should be part of the basic Federal infrastructure. We should pay the actual cost of implementing that system and No More. Actual credit is the purview of banks, not transaction fees for de facto currency.
Could blockchain be used in such a system to the benefit of honest legal business and financial transactions? And would it be worth the energy expense and the subsequent vulnerability of internet failure? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. Crypto seems like an additional avenue to fleece consumers. But nobody seems to be looking at the possibility of ending legal entrenched leeching of wealth through excessive privatized transaction costs. And no one will until voters, and not Big Money interests, control our democracy.
You’re raising valid concerns, especially about predatory transaction fees and the concentration of financial power. But I think you’re overlooking that crypto and blockchain emerged partly as a reaction to those exact frustrations. For many people, the appeal was never “untraceable crime money” — it was the idea of peer-to-peer value transfer without layers of intermediaries extracting fees from every transaction.
Also, “untraceable” is often overstated. Most major blockchains are actually public ledgers where transactions are permanently recorded and far more transparent than cash. Law enforcement has successfully tracked illicit activity on-chain many times precisely because blockchain leaves a trail.
On the energy issue, that criticism mainly applies to older proof-of-work systems like Bitcoin. A large part of the industry has already shifted toward far more energy-efficient consensus models. The technology is evolving quickly, just like the internet did in its early inefficient stages.
Ironically, your idea of low-cost national digital payment infrastructure is not necessarily anti-blockchain — it could eventually incorporate blockchain principles, cryptographic verification, or even post-quantum cryptography for future security resilience. The real debate shouldn’t be “crypto good” or “crypto bad.” It should be about how to build transparent, low-cost, secure financial systems that reduce rent-seeking while preserving freedom, privacy, and resilience.
Yes, I agree, a real-time, no-fee, national payment system for the U.S. Dollar would end this nonsense about Stablecoins. Look over at Medium for a proposal for such a system:
https://medium.com/@ron.bengtson/the-mafia-paradigm-49e04f01c0ca
A real-time, no-fee USD payment system would definitely reduce the appeal of stablecoins, especially for everyday transactions.
But it wouldn’t eliminate the underlying demand for programmable, borderless, or interoperable digital money.
The bigger issue isn’t “crypto vs no crypto” — it’s whether future payment systems, public or private, are built with strong cryptographic security (including post-quantum readiness), transparency, and resilience against failure and abuse.
Whether it's a scam can be debated. But Don's use of crypto to enrich himself at the expense of the national interest cannot be. The pardon case of CZ alone is disgusting, given his conviction for laundering money for Hamas, ISIS, and other terrorist groups. Meanwhile, establishment elites like Oren and R senators remain silent. Nothing to see here... This is astounding to me. Imagine if Obama or W had sold American interests down the river for a few billion... Crypto corruption has proven to be Don's most lucrative career endeavor, outpacing the original leaders-inheritance and being a game show host.
Don?
Yes, Don
Not clear if you are admiring his feats with a back-handed compliment or trying to insult him. I personally do not think of him as a master-mind .. just a salesman to who happened along to tap into a zeitgest that he does not fully understand .. he just responds and takes his direction from the crowd .. which worked well enough (Bless you Trump for me not having to strip or have my bag of sex toys - okay, just a laptop - rummaged through on my last two trips through the airport) until he stopped being exposed to that crowd .. and of course he is now getting truly old.
It's pretty doggone delicious watching maga and the "new" right defend Don's corruption:). The same people who were apoplectic when just the son of our former prez traded on his famous last name to pocket a few hundred grand selling bad art. Unseemly and wrong? Indeed. But now, as the actual sitting prez sells American interests down the river for billions dumped directly into his pocket, they lap it up. Even when he pardons Chinese crypto criminals, or accepts cash tributes from foreign interests. I gotta hand it to Don, he's a doggone good flimflam man. His flock chants his slogans (America first, drain the swamp, etc) while Don pockets the loot.
Don's character, or lack thereof, has been on display for years. But it's helpful when he exposes the same in the long-ruling establishment elites of the "new" right.
Isn't it time for a new "new" right? The current version has become stale, lost its focus, and collapsed into a cult of the dear leader.
Greed and corruption are the forces behind the political support for cryptocurrency. What is needed is a national real-time payment system for the U.S. dollar. No one would be taking stable-coins seriously if a “no fee” real-time payment system for the U.S. dollar was available. No fee means the merchants would not pay a fee or any percentage of the transaction for using the system.
Like transporting products over the national interstate highway system without paying a toll, America needs a payments highway that connects all buyers and sellers in real-time. Like cash, but cash that is deposited directly into the sellers account in real-time 7/24/365
For example see The MAFIA paradigm:
https://www.amazon.com/MAFIA-paradigm-America-Financially-Independent/dp/B0FSZ2QMKV
The MAFIA paradigm exposes the crypto lies and reveals the path forward for the USA 🇺🇸
I've decided to put my life savings into mathematical algorithms.
What's amazing is that so many people fall for that and think they're "investing".
Geez, Oren. I hate it when I have to agree with you. Look at the structure of any crypto currency, its value is completely determined in the moment by what the next buyer is willing to pay. There are no underlying fundamentals like cash flow or book value. That’s the very definition of a Ponzi Scheme or multi-level marketing, both of which are scams.
A dollar bill is a piece of paper. One that for some bizarre reason, one cannot even exchange for a bit of gold, the very reason we accepted this coupon as legal tender. Bait and Switch of the century.
That’s a reductionist way to look at it, and historically wrong.
You had it right the first time .. historically strong. That said, it is also the reason we must all continue to BELIEVE in it, else it goes up in a puff of smoke, as did the penny.
Well, no. First, sorry about the mixup, autocorrect did that. Second, originally, the dollar could be exchanged for a chunk of gold. Theoretically, the British Pound can still be exchanged for sterling. Good luck doing that, though.
In fact, though, my daughter got it right when in high school, she sarcastically answered the question: “What is money?” with “A figment of everyone’s imagination.” Even gold holds value only because people believe it does. Look at your original statement: why should a chunk of gold be worth more than paper? Only because people want it to, so no bait and switch.
If you want to exchange your dollars for gold you are free to buy gold with your dollars. The value of gold is measured in dollars. The value dollars is not measured by gold. The intrinsic value of the dollar is the backing of the U.S. government. Inflation is a political issue, a failure of Congress to stop deficit spending.
Well, yes. (And yes the Federal Reserve Bank system probably did help unleash the 20th century acceleration of wealth creation and technological progress .. but that tapping of unrealized wealth .. of unlaid golden eggs, is now killing the goose. But that is beyond my ability to even explain, much less effect.)
The poll question, and the article, fail to distinguish Bitcoin and its successors from stablecoins.
The former might one day become useful and are relatively harmless. Stablecoins, by contrast, are a huge deal and a danger to most of us. I have not yet figured out all the ways in which they pick our collective pockets, but I note that the Trump dynasty has passed the GENIUS act and made buckets of money since.
Aficionados always tell me that the important thing about it is that it isn't a fiat currency subject to inflation at the whim of the government. But it seems to me that if this were really the selling point, the price of bread in bitcoin should be constant.
I have had that argument too
To convince me, it would have to be redeemable for something real.
I don’t understand?
The future of crypto are the stable coins linked to the dollar and backed by $Billions in US Treasuries.. You get all the advantages of the blockchain in encryption, transparency and ease of transacting and settlement - but you dont get the wild swings of currencies like Bitcoin that have no intrinsic value. Stablecoins could eventually use blockchain technology to take out the credit card middlemen that charge 3% to settle many of our transactions today. Even the criminal activity that is a core use of crypto is better served by stable coins. Very badly researched piece to not mention the promise of stable coins and to focus only on the currencies created out of thin air which I agree dont make sense.
It’s a scam for those who don’t know how to trade it.
It’s a paradise for me
The very fact that it enables organized crime is reason enough to outlaw it.
"Perhaps the pandering to this particular special interest is lucrative.."
Yes, especially for our president and his family.
There is a degree of multi or duplicative regulation of the banking industry. Nonetheless, since the Great Depression, the banking industry has held up very well including the Great Recession and the collapse of SVB. The Crypto industry is hardly regulated and if it is allowed to pay interest, I think we will see a return to Andrew Jackson. If they pay interest and lend money, who will oversee credit quality?
Cryptocurrency itself isn’t inherently a scam — it’s a technology and financial system. The real issue is that scams, hype, and bad actors often attach themselves to it, just like they do in every emerging industry. There’s a difference between criticizing fraudulent projects and dismissing the entire space altogether. Blockchain has legitimate use cases, but it also requires regulation, transparency, and informed participation to separate innovation from speculation.
Yes