Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, has reignited debate over Bitcoin’s long-term viability, arguing that the cryptocurrency has “completely failed” as both a currency and a store of value and is unlikely to become a mainstream monetary instrument. In a recent social media post, Wales said Bitcoin is robust enough to avoid going to zero absent a catastrophic cryptographic flaw or sustained 51% attack, but ultimately may trade only at levels “commensurate with the price for hobbyists.”
He suggested a long-term price target below $10,000 by 2050, potentially even lower, reflecting his view that Bitcoin’s real-world utility as money has not materialized despite years of adoption efforts.
People who think that Bitcoin is going to zero are likely mistaken. The design is robust enough that it will continue to exist in perpetuity, barring some currently unforeseen breakdown in cryptography or a surprise 51% attack (even then, a fork would carry on I would imagine).…
— Jimmy Wales (@jimmy_wales) February 25, 2026
Bitcoin Sees Massive Resistance at $70,000
The comments come as Bitcoin trades above $67,000, yet remains under pressure after a volatile month that saw the asset decline roughly 24% amid macro tightening, ETF flow volatility, and broader risk-off sentiment across digital assets. While proponents argue that Bitcoin’s resilience, institutional integration, and scarcity narrative support its long-term store-of-value thesis, critics like Wales contend that price appreciation alone does not equate to functional monetary success, especially given limited everyday transactional usage and persistent volatility.
Leftists Activists Are Becoming More Anti-Bitcoin
Left-leaning economists and activists have echoed similar skepticism, though from a different ideological lens. Yanis Varoufakis, for instance, has repeatedly criticized Bitcoin as a speculative asset that reinforces financialization rather than democratizing money, arguing it lacks the stability and governance mechanisms required for equitable economic coordination. Such critiques frame Bitcoin less as failed technology and more as an instrument shaped by market dynamics that may privilege capital holders over broader public utility.
