Hating Bitcoin is psychological, not economic

Bitcoin hate: sour grapes, envy and a 15-year windfall

The hatred of bitcoin is not rational. Or at least not only. There are technical arguments against it, but the virulence of the critics smells like Aesop's fable: like the fox that cannot reach the grapes and declares them sour, the nocoiner spends years tracking the price of an asset he does not own. The same does not happen with Tesla, Nvidia or Amazon, which also multiplied without anyone mounting a crusade against them.

The psychology of resentment is explained with two ingredients: the feeling of having arrived too late and the inability to admit the mistake. There is a formula circulating online that sums up the phenomenon: "a nocoiner who hates bitcoin is a bitcoiner who decided not to be one." Whoever saw the winning lottery number without buying a ticket does not want it to win. Guilt is projected as contempt so as not to admit being wrong.

The same criticisms since 2013

The arguments against it have not been refreshed in a decade. That it is a pyramid scheme, that it is the modern tulip mania, that it is not used as currency. Those who reduce it to "a few weirdos" have to swallow two stubborn facts: bitcoin is worth around 72,000 euros and has existed for 15 years. No pyramid scheme waits that long to collapse. And when it falls, as it did from 60,000 to 16,000, the crash is used as proof that it was all smoke; when it rises, they stay quiet until the next crash. The 75% volatility is real. But so is the fact that critics trinc it closely without owning a single satoshi.

Electricity consumption: argument or smokescreen?

The comparison with entire countries is the detractors' favorite flag. But the usual chart is too simplistic: it attributes to bitcoin a consumption that actually has to be split among several countries, uses data from a specific date and assumes the network needs all that energy when it could run on less. Defenders reply with another uncomfortable question: how much electricity do video games, streaming or the planet's 190 central banks use with their offices and systems? Gold does not need electricity either, but it has to be extracted, secured and transported.

The hypocrisy of central banks

The scene is telling. While the ECB published a report in February 2024 ruling out bitcoin as a means of payment and investment, Deutsche Bank was given the green light to custody crypto for institutional clients. And the same blockchain technology that libertarians sell as an anti-system weapon is the one central banks are adopting for their digital currencies. Critics see it as a confirmation: bitcoin was not so anti-system after all, or the system has decided to swallow it. The most cynical reply that a CBDC is not your money, it is your sovereignty under control.

Between the windfall and the store of value

The underlying debate is whether bitcoin is money or speculation. For now it is the latter with shades of the former. Its market cap exceeds that of silver and holders do not sell; but it is not used in daily commerce either, and anonymity has practically migrated to Monero. Even so, the hatred it provokes has no parallel with other bubbles. Goldbugs stung at losing their safe-haven status, and traditional brokers are annoyed that a penny stock without balance sheets is eating their lunch.

The prognosis is not flattering for anyone. If the pattern repeats, the next correction will be greeted with an "I told you so" and will let skeptics feel wise for another season. Then it will rise again and they will be late again. They have spent 15 years waiting for the grapes to ripen; they will probably spend another 15 without admitting that the problem is not the fruit, but the height of the tree.