Former U.K. prime minister Boris Johnson stoked fresh controversy in the crypto world after labeling bitcoin a “giant Ponzi scheme” in a column for the Daily Mail and on X. Johnson recounted a cautionary tale from his Oxfordshire village in which a retired man handed £500 ($661) to someone in a pub who promised to double it via bitcoin. According to Johnson, the man spent three and a half years paying fees and attempting withdrawals before ultimately losing roughly £20,000 ($26,450), which Johnson conceded looked like “some kind of scam.”
Johnson used the story to question bitcoin’s intrinsic value, arguing that unlike gold or collectible cards—which have cultural or physical appeal—bitcoin is “just a string of numbers stored in a series of computers.” He also flagged the mystery of bitcoin’s creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, asking, “Who do we talk to if they decrypt the crypto?” and suggesting Nakamoto could be “no more real than Pikachu or Charmander.”
The crypto community, however, pushed back quickly and forcefully. Michael Saylor, executive chairman of Strategy (MSTR), the world’s largest corporate bitcoin holder, rebutted Johnson on X, saying a Ponzi scheme requires a “central operator promising returns and paying early investors with funds from later ones.” By contrast, Saylor emphasized, “Bitcoin has no issuer, no promoter, and no guaranteed return—just an open, decentralized monetary network driven by code and market demand.”
A community note added to the post highlighted the technical distinction: Ponzi schemes normally promise artificially high, low-risk returns and rely on new investor money to pay earlier participants. Bitcoin, the note argued, has no issuer and derives its value from free-market dynamics; the code is public and participation is voluntary. BitMEX Research summed up the decentralization point bluntly: “nobody is in charge.”
Responses across the platform varied—from in-depth technical threads explaining bitcoin’s fixed supply, decentralized consensus, and open-source design, to memes and broader critiques of government monetary policy and pandemic-era money printing. Many defenders pointed to bitcoin’s capped supply and network architecture as concrete differences from classic Ponzi mechanics, while critics leaned on anecdotal scams and the risks faced by uninformed retail investors.
The exchange highlights a persistent divide: high-profile political skepticism focused on individual losses and the opacity of crypto, versus the industry’s counterargument that bitcoin’s code, economic model and decentralized governance distinguish it from fraud. The debate is likely to continue as bitcoin’s price, adoption and regulatory scrutiny evolve.
Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news
