The
Bank for International Settlements summarized several criticisms of cryptocurrencies in Chapter V of their 2018 annual report. The criticisms include the lack of stability in their price, the high energy consumption, high and variable transactions costs, the poor security and fraud at cryptocurrency exchanges, vulnerability to debasement (from forking), and the influence of miners.
Speculation, fraud, and adoption Cryptocurrencies have been compared to
Ponzi schemes,
pyramid schemes and
economic bubbles, such as
housing market bubbles.
Howard Marks of
Oaktree Capital Management stated in 2017 that digital currencies were "nothing but an unfounded fad (or perhaps even a pyramid scheme), based on a willingness to ascribe value to something that has little or none beyond what people will pay for it", and compared them to the
tulip mania (1637),
South Sea Bubble (1720), and
dot-com bubble (1999), which all experienced profound price booms and busts. Regulators in several countries have warned against cryptocurrency and some have taken measures to dissuade users. However, research in 2021 by the UK's financial regulator suggests such warnings either went unheard, or were ignored. Fewer than one in 10 potential cryptocurrency buyers were aware of consumer warnings on the
Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) website, and 12% of crypto users were not aware that their holdings were not protected by
statutory compensation. Of 1,000 respondents between the ages of eighteen and forty, 70% wrongly assumed cryptocurrencies were regulated, 75% of younger crypto investors claimed to be driven by competition with friends and family, and 58% said that social media enticed them to make high risk investments. The FCA recommends making use of its warning list, which flags unauthorized financial firms. Many banks do not offer virtual currency services themselves and can refuse to do business with virtual currency companies. In 2014, Gareth Murphy, a senior banking officer, suggested that the widespread adoption of cryptocurrencies may lead to too much money being
obfuscated, blinding economists who would use such information to better steer the economy. While traditional financial products have strong consumer protections in place, there is no intermediary with the power to limit consumer losses if bitcoins are lost or stolen. One of the features cryptocurrency lacks in comparison to credit cards, for example, is consumer protection against fraud, such as
chargebacks. The French regulator
Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF) lists 16 websites of companies that solicit investment in cryptocurrency without being authorized to do so in France. An October 2021 paper by the
National Bureau of Economic Research found that bitcoin suffers from systemic risk as the top 10,000 addresses control about one-third of all bitcoin in circulation. It is even worse for miners, with 0.01% controlling 50% of the capacity. According to researcher Flipside Crypto, less than 2% of anonymous accounts control 95% of all available bitcoin supply. This is considered risky as a great deal of the market is in the hands of a few entities. A paper by John Griffin, a finance professor at the
University of Texas, and Amin Shams, a graduate student, found that in 2017 the price of bitcoin had been substantially inflated using another cryptocurrency, Tether.
Roger Lowenstein, author of "
Bank of America: The Epic Struggle to Create the Federal Reserve," said in a 2022 New York Times story that
FTX currency exchange will face over $8 billion in claims.
Non-fungible tokens Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are digital assets that represent art, collectibles, gaming, etc. Like crypto, their data is stored on the blockchain. NFTs are bought and traded using cryptocurrency. The Ethereum blockchain was the first place where NFTs were implemented, but now many other blockchains have created their own versions of NFTs.
Banks According to Vanessa Grellet, renowned panelist in blockchain conferences, there was an increasing interest from traditional
stock exchanges in crypto-assets at the end of the 2010s, while crypto-exchanges such as
Coinbase were gradually entering the traditional
financial markets. This convergence marked a significant trend where conventional financial actors were adopting blockchain technology to enhance operational efficiency, while the crypto world introduced innovations like
Security Token Offering (STO), enabling new ways of
fundraising. Tokenization, turning assets such as
real estate,
investment funds, and
private equity into blockchain-based tokens, had the potential to make traditionally illiquid assets more accessible to investors. Despite the regulatory risks associated with such developments, major financial institutions, including
JPMorgan Chase, were actively working on blockchain initiatives, exemplified by the creation of Quorum, a private blockchain platform. As the first big Wall Street bank to embrace cryptocurrencies,
Morgan Stanley announced on 17 March 2021 that they will be offering access to bitcoin funds for their wealthy clients through three funds which enable bitcoin ownership for investors with an aggressive risk tolerance. BNY Mellon on 11 February 2021 announced that it would begin offering cryptocurrency services to its clients. On 20 April 2021,
Venmo added support to its platform to enable customers to buy, hold and sell cryptocurrencies. In October 2021, financial services company
Mastercard announced it is working with digital asset manager
Bakkt on a platform that would allow any bank or merchant on the Mastercard network to offer cryptocurrency services.
Environmental effects Mining for
proof-of-work (PoW) cryptocurrencies requires enormous amounts of electricity and consequently comes with a large
carbon footprint due to causing
greenhouse gas emissions. Proof-of-work blockchains such as bitcoin,
Ethereum,
Litecoin, and
Monero were estimated to have added between 3 million and 15 million tons of
carbon dioxide () to the atmosphere in the period from 1 January 2016 to 30 June 2017. By November 2018, bitcoin was estimated to have an annual
energy consumption of 45.8TWh, generating 22.0 to 22.9 million tons of , rivalling nations like
Jordan and
Sri Lanka. By the end of 2021, bitcoin was estimated to produce 65.4 million tons of , as much as
Greece, and consume between 91 and 177 terawatt-hours annually. Critics have also identified a large
electronic waste problem in disposing of
mining rigs. Mining hardware is improving at a fast rate, quickly resulting in older generations of hardware. Bitcoin is the least energy-efficient cryptocurrency, using 707.6 kilowatt-hours of electricity per transaction. Before June 2021, China was the primary location for bitcoin mining. However, due to concerns over power usage and other factors, China forced out bitcoin operations, at least temporarily. As a result, the United States promptly emerged as the top global leader in the industry. An example of a gross amount of electronic waste associated with bitcoin mining operations in the US is a facility located in Dalton, Georgia which is consuming nearly the same amount of electricity as the combined power usage of 97,000 households in its vicinity. Another example is that Riot Platforms operates a bitcoin mining facility in Rockdale, Texas, which consumes approximately as much electricity as the nearby 300,000 households. This makes it the most energy-intensive bitcoin mining operation in the United States. The world's second-largest cryptocurrency, Ethereum, uses 62.56 kilowatt-hours of electricity per transaction.
XRP is the world's most energy efficient cryptocurrency, using 0.0079 kilowatt-hours of electricity per transaction. Although the biggest PoW blockchains consume energy on the scale of medium-sized countries, the annual power demand from
proof-of-stake (PoS) blockchains is on a scale equivalent to a housing estate.
The Times identified six "environmentally friendly" cryptocurrencies: Bitgreen,
Cardano,
Chia,
IOTA,
Nano, and Solarcoin. Academics and researchers have used various methods for estimating the energy use and energy efficiency of blockchains. A study of the six largest PoS networks in May 2021 concluded: •
Cardano has the lowest electricity use per node; •
Polkadot has the lowest electricity use overall; and •
Solana has the lowest electricity use per transaction. In terms of annual consumption (kWh/year), the figures were: Polkadot (70,237),
Tezos (113,249),
Avalanche (489,311),
Algorand (512,671), Cardano (598,755) and Solana (1,967,930). This equates to Polkadot consuming 7 times the electricity of an average U.S. home, Cardano 57 homes and Solana 200 times as much. The research concluded that PoS networks consumed 0.001% the electricity of the bitcoin network. University College London researchers reached a similar conclusion.
Variable renewable energy power stations could invest in bitcoin mining to reduce
curtailment,
hedge electricity price risk, stabilize the grid, increase the
profitability of renewable energy power stations and therefore accelerate
transition to sustainable energy.
Technological limitations There are also purely technical elements in play. For example, technological advancement in cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin result in high up-front costs to miners in the form of specialized
hardware and
software. Cryptocurrency transactions are normally irreversible after a number of blocks confirm the transaction. Additionally, cryptocurrency private keys can be permanently lost from local storage due to malware, data loss, or simply carelessness. This precludes the cryptocurrency from any usage whatsoever, permanently, thus removing it from the market.
Academic studies In September 2015, the establishment of the
peer-reviewed academic journal Ledger () was announced. It covers studies of cryptocurrencies and related technologies, and is published by the
University of Pittsburgh. The journal encourages authors to
digitally sign a
file hash of submitted papers, which will then be
timestamped into the bitcoin
blockchain. Authors are also asked to include a personal bitcoin address in the first page of their papers.
Aid agencies A number of
aid agencies have started accepting donations in cryptocurrencies, including
UNICEF. Christopher Fabian, principal adviser at UNICEF Innovation, said the children's fund would uphold donor protocols, meaning that people making donations online would have to pass checks before they were allowed to deposit funds. However, in 2021, there was a backlash against donations in bitcoin because of the environmental emissions it caused. Some agencies stopped accepting bitcoin and others turned to "greener" cryptocurrencies. The
U.S. arm of Greenpeace stopped accepting bitcoin donations after seven years. It said: "As the amount of energy needed to run bitcoin became clearer, this policy became no longer tenable." In 2022, the
Ukrainian government raised over worth of aid through cryptocurrency following the
2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Criticism Bitcoin was characterized as a
speculative bubble in 2014–2018 by eight
winners of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences:
Angus Deaton,
Oliver Hart,
Thomas Sargent,
Joseph Stiglitz, and
Richard Thaler; and in 2013–2018 by central bank officials including
Agustín Carstens (Mexico),
Vítor Constâncio (Portugal),
Alan Greenspan (US), and
Nout Wellink (Netherlands). Investors
Warren Buffett and
George Soros have respectively characterized it in 2014–2018 as a "mirage" and a "bubble". Business executives
Jack Ma and
JP Morgan Chase CEO
Jamie Dimon have called it in 2017–2018 a "bubble" and a "fraud", respectively, although Jamie Dimon later said in 2018 that he regretted stating bitcoin was a fraud.
BlackRock CEO
Laurence D. Fink in 2017 called bitcoin an "index of
money laundering". In June 2022, business magnate
Bill Gates said that cryptocurrencies are "100% based on
greater fool theory". Legal scholars criticize the lack of regulation, which hinders conflict resolution when crypto assets are at the center of a legal dispute, for example a divorce or an inheritance. In Switzerland, jurists generally deny that cryptocurrencies are objects that fall under
property law, as cryptocurrencies do not belong to any class of legally defined objects (
Typenzwang, the legal
numerus clausus). Therefore, it is debated whether anybody could even be sued for
embezzlement of cryptocurrency if they had access to someone's wallet. However, in the
law of obligations and
contract law, any kind of object would be legally valid, but the object would have to be tied to an identified
counterparty. However, inasmuch the more popular cryptocurrencies can be freely and quickly exchanged into legal tender, they are financial assets and have to be taxed and accounted for as such. Losses associated with cryptocurrency investments have been linked to suicides. In 2018, an increase in crypto-related suicides was noticed after the cryptocurrency market crashed in August. The situation was particularly critical in Korea as crypto traders were on "suicide watch". The May 2022 collapse of the Luna currency operated by
Terra also led to reports of suicidal investors in crypto-related subreddits. ==See also==