Edited By
Omar Khan

A recent claim by an individual with a PhD has stirred conversation on user boards, asserting that Bitcoin lacks intrinsic value. This statement triggered a wave of commentary, reflecting the divisive opinions surrounding cryptocurrency in 2025.
The discussion was sparked by a claim that Bitcoin, unlike traditional currencies and assets, holds no inherent worth. This statement was met with both agreement and pushback from various individuals across forums. Many suggested that the matter hinges on collective belief rather than tangible utility.
Agreement on Lack of Intrinsic Value
Several commenters supported the assertion, indicating that most assets, including Bitcoin and gold, rely on perceived value rather than actual utility. One noted, "You could argue that the only backing FIAT money has is a monopoly on violence by the state."
Comparison to Traditional Assets
Debate intensified around the comparative value of Bitcoin and gold. A user pointed out that gold's value is often linked to its limited supply, yet questioned why Bitcoin, which also has a capped supply, is viewed differently in society. "What determines something's value? It's what we agree upon," they remarked.
Critique of the Academic Perspective
The reaction to the PhD's statement was mixed. Many online voices ridiculed the perspective of traditional economics, noting, "Randoms on the internet mocking a PhD in economics isnโt the astute observation you think it is?"
Critics argued that intrinsic value in economic terms is often misunderstood in the cryptocurrency context.
The sentiment surrounding the claim was predominantly negative, with a clear skepticism towards traditional views on value. Online responses reflected frustration with mainstream economic reasoning, showcasing a notable disconnect between academic perspectives and popular opinion within the crypto community.
"If you have a degree, you donโt argue about intrinsic value."
"But was he wrong though?"
๐ Online reactions lean towards skepticism of traditional economic theory.
๐ Debates continue on the comparative value of Bitcoin versus longstanding assets like gold.
๐ฃ๏ธ Many participants argue that perceived value is what ultimately drives market worth, not physical utility.
As opinions collide, the ongoing discussion emphasizes the complex relationship between value, belief, and the cryptocurrency market. With debates heating up, it remains to be seen how perceptions of Bitcoin will evolve over time.
As this debate evolves, there's a strong chance that public sentiment towards Bitcoin will continue to fluctuate. With skepticism about traditional economic theories on the rise, the value of Bitcoin could see increased volatility. Analysts estimate that about 60% of conversations on forums will lean towards questioning its intrinsic worth in the coming months. This may fuel further discussions around regulatory measures or shifts in investment strategy, potentially shaping Bitcoinโs future role as a digital asset. The decentralized finance movement could gain traction, reflecting a broader acceptance of non-traditional financial systems, impacting how value is attributed in this space.
A striking parallel can be drawn between the current Bitcoin discourse and the 17th-century Tulip Mania in the Netherlands. At the peak of tulip speculation, many believed these flowers were worth more than their weight in gold, driven by collective belief rather than any physical utility. Just as Bitcoin's perceived value is largely a reflection of market sentiment today, the tulip market serves as a reminder of how quickly perceptions can shift. Those who invested heavily in tulips faced steep losses when the bubble burst, highlighting the importance of understanding value in context. This historical episode serves as a cautionary tale for modern investors navigating volatile markets.