Does Crypto Have Intrinsic Value? Why Its True Floor Might Be Zero
A rigorous, evidence-based examination of what Bitcoin is actually worth, what gives any asset ‘intrinsic value,’ and why the debate has profound implications for investors everywhere
The Question That Won’t Go Away
Bitcoin has now survived more than 15 years of ‘death notices.’ It has crashed 80% or more multiple times. It has been declared obsolete, fraudulent, and environmentally ruinous. And yet, every time critics pronounce the eulogy, the price recovers, often to new highs. So which is it: a resilient store of value, or an elaborate speculative illusion waiting for its final chapter?
The answer hinges on a deceptively simple question that most commentators never bother to define properly: what does ‘intrinsic value’ actually mean? And once we define it carefully, a second question follows naturally — if Bitcoin has no intrinsic value in the traditional sense, does that automatically mean its floor price is zero?
This article confronts both questions head-on. We pull from research by central banks, academic economists, financial analysts, and market participants across the ideological spectrum. We examine the mining economics that some analysts use to estimate a ‘cost floor,’ the network effect arguments that Bitcoin advocates rely on, and the structural arguments that lead sceptics to conclude the only honest floor is zero.
Along the way, we reference findings from theEuropean Central Bank, theReserve Bank of Australia, Bernstein Research, Bitcoin Magazine’s quantitative analysis, and independent commentary from both bears and bulls. The goal is not to convince you of any particular view. The goal is to give you the most honest analytical framework available so you can form your own judgment.
Part 1: What ‘Intrinsic Value’ Actually Means in Economics
The phrase ‘intrinsic value’ gets thrown around in financial commentary with surprising looseness. Before we can assess whether Bitcoin has it, we need to define the term with precision. Otherwise, the whole debate collapses into competing talking points.
The Classical Definition
In classical economics, intrinsic value refers to the value an asset derives from its own fundamental properties, independent of what any buyer is willing to pay for it at any given moment. A share of a profitable company has intrinsic value derived from the discounted present value of its future cash flows. A bond has intrinsic value equal to its promised coupon payments and principal repayment, discounted at an appropriate rate. Commodities like oil or wheat have intrinsic value derived from their utility: oil powers engines, wheat feeds people.
Under this definition, Bitcoin clearly has no intrinsic value in the traditional sense. It produces no cash flows. It has no industrial utility. It cannot be consumed. There is no underlying revenue stream to discount. As the Reserve Bank of Australia states plainly, cryptocurrencies have no legislated or intrinsic value — they are simply worth what people are willing to pay for them in the market.
This contrasts directly with national currencies, which derive part of their value from being designated as legal tender by governments, making them acceptable for settling taxes and legal obligations within a jurisdiction. Bitcoin has no such legislative backing.
The Broader Definition: Network Value and Social Consensus
Bitcoin supporters often respond that the ‘intrinsic value’ critique applies equally to fiat currencies and gold. Neither a dollar bill nor a gold bar produces cash flows. Both derive value from collective belief — from the shared social consensus that they are worth something.
This is a legitimate philosophical point. The Bruegel Institute’s policy paper on cryptocurrencies and monetary policy notes that, like electronic money issued by central and commercial banks, cryptocurrencies are also fiduciary — they have no intrinsic value in the strict sense. Fiat money derives its value from institutional trust, legal frameworks, and network effects. The question, then, is whether Bitcoin’s network effects and institutional adoption are sufficiently durable to anchor a similar trust-based value.
This reframing is intellectually honest but still requires careful analysis. The trust underlying the US dollar is backed by the largest economy on earth, centuries of institutional development, and legal compulsion. The trust underlying Bitcoin rests on cryptographic consensus, ideological conviction, and speculative momentum. These are categorically different foundations, even if both are ultimately grounded in human belief.
The ‘No Intrinsic Value’ Spectrum
To understand the Bitcoin debate, it helps to map assets along a spectrum of intrinsic value foundations:
| Asset | Value Source | Cash Flows? | Minimum Floor |
| Dividend stock | Future earnings, assets, brand | Yes | Book value/liquidation |
| Government bond | Sovereign credit, contractual cashflows | Yes (coupons) | Par value (near default: low) |
| Physical gold | Industrial use + 5,000yr store-of-value convention | No | Industrial spot price ($800-1,200/oz historically) |
| Fiat currency (USD) | Legal tender laws, tax obligations, and institutional trust | No | Face value (legal minimum) |
| Bitcoin (BTC) | Cryptographic scarcity + network consensus | No | Contested — see below |
| Altcoins (most) | Speculation + temporary narrative | No | Effectively zero for most |
The table reveals something important. Even gold — often cited as Bitcoin’s predecessor in the ‘sound money’ lineage — has an industrial utility floor that prevents its price from ever reaching zero. Bitcoin lacks this backstop entirely. Whether that matters depends on how durable you believe its network effect to be.
Part 2: The Mining Cost Argument — Bitcoin’s Supposed ‘Floor’
Bitcoin advocates frequently cite mining production costs as evidence of a fundamental price floor. The argument is intuitive: if it costs $X in electricity and hardware to produce one Bitcoin, rational miners won’t sell that cost indefinitely, which should create a price support level. It sounds compelling. However, the reality is considerably more complex.
How Bitcoin Mining Economics Actually Work
Bitcoin mining is an energy-intensive process in which specialised computers called ASICs compete to solve cryptographic puzzles. The first miner to solve the puzzle earns the block reward — currently 3.125 BTC per block following the April 2024 halving — plus transaction fees. This competition creates the ‘cost of production’ that analysts track.
According to Bitcoin Magazine’s quantitative analysis, one of the most reliable long-term valuation metrics for Bitcoin is its production cost — the estimated electrical expense to mine one BTC. This metric has historically aligned closely with Bitcoin’s deepest bear market lows. After every halving, the production cost doubles, forming a rising structural floor under the price over time. As of the April 2024 halving, this value sat at approximately $70,000, though it fluctuates daily with changes in hash rate and electricity costs.
‘When Bitcoin trades below its production cost, it signals miner stress and typically coincides with generational accumulation opportunities.’ — Bitcoin Magazine.
The MVRV ratio adds a second layer to this analysis. Bitcoin Magazine notes that during deep bear markets, Bitcoin historically tends to fall to around 0.75 times its realised price — meaning the market price trades approximately 25% below the network’s aggregate cost basis. This ratio has provided consistent bear-market floor estimates across multiple cycles.
The Halving Cycle and Diminishing Drawdowns
Bitcoin’s halving events cut the block reward in half approximately every four years. This mechanically doubles the production cost for miners who continue operating under similar conditions. Bitcoin Magazine’s analysis shows a consistent trend of diminishing maximum drawdowns across successive cycles: the earliest cycles saw declines of 88%, compressing to 80% in 2018 and 75% in 2022.
Projecting this trend forward, the analysis suggests the next major bear market could involve a retracement of approximately 70% from the cycle high. If Bitcoin were to peak at, say, $200,000 in a future cycle, that projection would imply a low around $60,000 — consistent with current realised price trajectory estimates. This framework is not a guarantee; it is a probabilistic model based on observed historical patterns.
Why Bernstein Says the Mining Floor Argument Is Flawed
Not everyone accepts the mining cost floor theory. Bernstein Research’s analysis argues compellingly that applying traditional commodity floor concepts to Bitcoin is fundamentally misguided. Their core argument: for traditional commodities, the cost of extracting the next unit does not depend on price — it depends on labour, fuel, and physical resource availability. If the oil price crashes, oil production can slow, reducing supply and supporting prices. This supply-demand feedback loop creates a natural floor.
Bitcoin is categorically different. Its production follows a predetermined schedule, unaffected by price fluctuations. The network difficulty adjusts every 2,016 blocks — roughly every two weeks — to maintain an average block time of around 10 minutes, regardless of whether Bitcoin is trading at $10,000 or $100,000. As Bernstein notes, when miners exit the network, the difficulty simply falls, making it easier for remaining miners to continue. New bitcoins continue to appear on the same fixed schedule, no matter what happens to the price.
Therefore, the mining cost is not a supply-side floor in any conventional economic sense. It is a measure of current miner profitability, not a structural minimum below which supply automatically contracts. If the price crashes, miners may leave, but production continues. The next batch of 3.125 BTC will be mined regardless — just by whoever can mine it most cheaply, even at very low prices.
Part 3: The Case That Bitcoin’s Floor Is Zero
Understanding the bull case for a mining cost floor makes the bear case sharper, not weaker. The critics who argue that Bitcoin’s true floor is zero are not being reckless — many are making a carefully reasoned economic argument that deserves a serious hearing.
Peter Schiff and the ‘No Utility’ Argument
Economist and gold advocate Peter Schiff has argued for years that Bitcoin has no intrinsic value and that its ultimate destination is zero. As reported by Yahoo Finance, Schiff emphasises that the real risk for investors is not whether Bitcoin technically reaches zero, but whether it collapses enough to wipe out the vast majority of invested capital. His example is pointed: ‘If you invest a million dollars in Bitcoin and it’s worth a hundred bucks — does it really matter if it goes to zero? It’s only a hundred-dollar difference, right?’
Schiff concedes that Bitcoin is unlikely to hit absolute zero within the next five to ten years, given the current ecosystem of exchanges, custodians, and institutional holders. However, he argues that over a century-long horizon, ‘no one will even remember Bitcoin.’ His view rests on the absence of any fundamental utility that could anchor demand independent of speculative conviction.
The Death Spiral Risk
A more specific path to zero involves what investor Michael Burry — who famously shorted the U.S. housing market before the 2008 collapse — described as a potential ‘death spiral.’ According to Futurism’s coverage of the debate, Burry has warned that a sufficiently deep crash could trigger a chain of forced selling that becomes self-reinforcing. As prices fall, leveraged holders face margin calls, selling begetting more selling, with no dividend, coupon, or industrial demand to arrest the decline at any particular level.
Richard Farr of Pivotus Partners put the argument bluntly: ‘Our BTC price target is 0.0. That’s not just for shock factor. It’s where the math takes us.’ Farr argues that Bitcoin increasingly operates as a speculative instrument correlated to the Nasdaq rather than as the uncorrelated haven its advocates claim. Under this framing, Bitcoin’s price depends entirely on continued risk appetite — and risk appetite has a history of evaporating suddenly.
The ECB’s Structural Critique
The European Central Bank has argued that crypto valuations are highly volatile precisely because of the absence of any intrinsic value. This makes them particularly sensitive to changes in risk appetite and market narratives. The ECB’s position is that Bitcoin has not developed into a form of finance that is innovative and robust, but has instead morphed into one that is deleterious, riddled with market failures and negative externalities.
The ECB further highlights a structural contradiction: Bitcoin was created to counteract the centralisation of the financial system, but has become highly centralised itself, concentrated in a small number of mining pools, custodians, and large holders. This centralisation undermines both the decentralisation narrative and the security assumptions that underpin Bitcoin’s value proposition.
Furthermore, unbacked cryptocurrencies lack any price stabilisation mechanism. Bitcoin exhibits volatility levels up to four times higher than stocks or gold, making it unsuitable as a medium of exchange or a reliable store of value over short time horizons. The ECB’s conclusion is that without proper regulatory safeguards, the crypto ecosystem is bound to experience further major disruptions.
Part 4: The Bull Case — Why Network Effects Might Prevent Zero
The bear case is serious and intellectually coherent. However, dismissing the bull case would be equally unbalanced. Bitcoin’s defenders have substantive arguments for why the asset is unlikely to ever reach zero — arguments that go beyond mere faith in rising prices.
Metcalfe’s Law and Network Value
The most rigorous bull case rests on network economics. Metcalfe’s Law holds that the value of a network grows in proportion to the square of the number of connected users. Bitcoin’s network now spans hundreds of millions of wallets, tens of thousands of nodes, a global mining infrastructure, a regulated ETF ecosystem, and growing institutional adoption, including spot Bitcoin ETFs approved in the United States in 2024.
According to Bitcoin Magazine’s cycle analysis, institutional adoption and broader financial integration have genuinely changed Bitcoin’s structure. The introduction of spot Bitcoin ETFs has created a new category of demand that is less speculative and more structurally persistent than retail momentum trading. As long as those ETFs hold billions in assets, there is a mechanical bid under the price from regular inflows.
Fixed Supply vs. Potentially Growing Demand
Bitcoin’s supply is capped at 21 million coins. This is not a policy target like a central bank’s inflation mandate — it is hardcoded into the protocol and can only change through a consensus of network participants that virtually every observer regards as politically impossible. This absolute scarcity is unlike any other asset in existence.
If demand for Bitcoin is anything other than zero in perpetuity — even a modest, persistent level — then its price cannot be zero, because there is a finite and declining supply. The bear case requires not merely that demand falls dramatically, but that it approaches zero and stays there. For an asset held by hundreds of millions of people across more than 100 countries, that is a harder outcome to engineer than critics sometimes acknowledge.
The Lindy Effect and Survivorship
The Lindy Effect is a concept from probability theory suggesting that the longer a non-perishable idea or technology has survived, the longer it can be expected to continue surviving. Bitcoin has now been continuously operational for over 16 years, surviving multiple market crashes, regulatory crackdowns, exchange collapses (including the FTX implosion in 2022), hard forks, and media death notices.
Each year it survives, the base-rate probability of its imminent death arguably declines. This is not a valuation argument — it says nothing about whether Bitcoin is fairly priced at any given moment. However, it does undercut the ‘imminent collapse to zero’ narrative that recurs in every bear market. Something that has survived this many predicted extinctions is, at minimum, more resilient than its critics assumed.
Part 5: What Academic Economics Says About Cryptocurrency Value
Beyond the market commentary, academic economists have produced a growing body of research on what drives cryptocurrency prices and whether any fundamental value anchor exists. The findings are nuanced.
The Fundamental Value Question in Peer-Reviewed Research
Cheah and Fry’s 2015 paper in Economics Letters investigated whether Bitcoin exhibits speculative bubble characteristics. Their conclusion was affirmative: Bitcoin markets display significant bubble behaviour, and the fundamental value of Bitcoin may well be zero. This finding, published in a peer-reviewed journal, is among the earliest academic treatments of the question. It is cited approvingly by sceptics, but was written when Bitcoin was a fraction of its current price and institutional adoption was virtually nonexistent.
The Bruegel Institute’s working paper on cryptocurrencies and monetary policy takes a more measured position. It notes that while cryptocurrencies have no intrinsic value in the strict classical sense, neither do fiat currencies under the same strict definition. The relevant question, Bruegel argues, is whether a cryptocurrency can build the institutional scaffolding — legal frameworks, widespread trust, adoption in commercial transactions — that gives fiat money its durability. That question remains open.
Drivers of Bitcoin Price: What the Data Shows
Kristoufek’s 2015 wavelet coherence analysis of Bitcoin price drivers identified several factors that consistently influence Bitcoin’s price across different time horizons. These include: investor attention and media coverage, exchange trading volumes, hash rate (as a proxy for mining activity), regulatory news, and macroeconomic sentiment. Crucially, none of these is ‘intrinsic’ in the classical sense — they are all sentiment and narrative-driven.
More recent research examining post-2020 Bitcoin markets has identified a growing correlation with US equity markets, particularly the Nasdaq. This correlation has important implications for the ‘digital gold’ and ‘haven’ narratives. If Bitcoin increasingly moves with risk assets rather than against them, it does not provide the portfolio diversification benefits that many institutional investors cited as justification for allocating to it.
The Speculative Bubble Framework
The Journal of Business and Economic Analysis of cryptocurrency market dynamics highlights that price formation in crypto markets is dominated by speculative demand rather than fundamental utility. The paper notes that market efficiency in Bitcoin remains highly contested, with Urquhart’s 2016 work in Economics Letters finding significant evidence of Bitcoin market inefficiency — a finding that has been partially revised by subsequent research showing improving efficiency as the market matures.
What the academic literature broadly agrees on is this: Bitcoin’s price reflects the intersection of speculative demand, narrative cycles, supply constraints, and emerging institutional frameworks. It does not reflect discounted future cash flows or utility value in any conventional sense. Whether the speculative demand is self-sustaining over the long term is the crux of the debate — and honest economists admit they do not know the answer.
Part 6: Comparing Bitcoin’s Value Proposition to Other Assets
To frame Bitcoin’s position clearly, it helps to compare it systematically to the assets it most frequently claims to replicate: gold, fiat currency, and equities.
| Property | Bitcoin | Gold | USD / Fiat | S&P 500 ETF |
| Cash flows | None | None | None (currency) | Yes (dividends) |
| Industrial demand floor | None | Yes (electronics, jewellery) | Legal tender obligation | Backed by real earnings |
| Supply cap | Hard cap: 21m BTC | Effectively finite (mined slowly) | Unlimited (central bank control) | Shares can be issued/bought back |
| Regulatory backing | Contested; growing ETF approval | No specific regulation needed | Full legal tender status | SEC-regulated, corporate law |
| Volatility (annual) | ~60-80% | ~15-20% | ~5-10% (vs other currencies) | ~15-20% |
| 5,000-yr track record? | No (est. 2009) | Yes | ~300 yrs for modern fiat | ~130 yrs (Dow: 1896) |
| True floor price | Theoretically zero | ~$800-1,500/oz (industrial) | Face value (by law) | Book value of holdings |
The table makes one thing clear: Bitcoin is genuinely novel. It shares characteristics with gold (finite supply, no cash flows), with fiat (value from network consensus), and with speculative assets (no industrial floor). This novelty is precisely why valuation is so contested. It does not fit cleanly into any existing framework, which means honest analysts must acknowledge the limits of every model they apply.
Part 7: The Regulatory Wildcard
Any honest assessment of Bitcoin’s floor must include the regulatory dimension. Cryptocurrency exists at the intersection of technology, finance, and geopolitics — all three of which are subject to policy change. Government decisions have historically been among the most powerful drivers of Bitcoin’s price, both positively and negatively.
What Comprehensive Regulatory Bans Would Mean
China banned cryptocurrency trading and mining multiple times, most recently and completely in 2021. Bitcoin’s price did not go to zero after China’s ban — instead, mining migrated to other jurisdictions and the price recovered within months. However, China is a single jurisdiction. A coordinated ban by the G7 economies simultaneously would test the network’s resilience far more severely.
Under a severe multi-jurisdiction crackdown, the demand for Bitcoin as a transactable asset would collapse, exchange access would disappear for most users, and the speculative premium that drives most of Bitcoin’s value above production cost would evaporate. Whether enough black-market and foreign demand exists to prevent a complete price collapse is unknown, but the outcome would almost certainly not be orderly.
The ETF Approval Effect and Institutional Anchoring
Conversely, the approval of spot Bitcoin ETFs in the United States by the SEC in January 2024 represents a significant regulatory validation. ETFs from major asset managers, including BlackRock and Fidelity, now hold tens of billions of dollars in Bitcoin. These entities are regulated, report to institutional investors, and have compliance obligations that make a sudden mass exit difficult. This institutional inertia provides a type of price anchoring that did not exist before 2024.
The CFTC’s regulatory oversight of Bitcoin derivatives adds another layer of institutional integration. As Bitcoin becomes embedded in regulated financial infrastructure, the probability of a complete regulatory ban in major economies declines — though it never reaches zero. The regulatory trajectory matters as much as current policy.
Part 8: Practical Implications for Investors
Enough theory. What does this analysis mean for people who are considering whether to buy, hold, or sell Bitcoin?
Position Sizing Is Everything
If Bitcoin’s floor is genuinely indeterminate — anywhere from $50,000 (based on halving cycle models) to zero (based on fundamental value analysis) — then the appropriate investment response is not to pick the right number but to size positions accordingly. An asset with a non-trivial probability of losing 70% to 100% of its value should represent a proportional share of your portfolio.
Most independent financial planners who accept cryptocurrency as a legitimate asset class recommend limiting it to 1% to 5% of a diversified portfolio. At that allocation, even a complete loss to zero has a manageable impact on overall wealth. At 20%, 30%, or higher allocations — not uncommon among retail crypto enthusiasts — the downside scenario becomes genuinely catastrophic for household financial security.
Time Horizon Matters Enormously
Bitcoin’s diminishing drawdown pattern, documented by Bitcoin Magazine, suggests that longer holding periods have historically reduced the risk of catastrophic loss. Someone who held Bitcoin for any 5-year period that began before 2017 is sitting on substantial gains regardless of subsequent volatility. Someone who bought at the November 2021 peak of ~$69,000 waited until late 2024 to see a new all-time high.
If you have a short time horizon — say, you need this capital within two years — Bitcoin’s volatility makes it unsuitable as a holding regardless of your view on its long-run value. The probability of needing to sell at an unfavourable point in a high-volatility cycle is simply too high to ignore.
Diversification Within Crypto Is Not Real Diversification
A critical mistake many retail investors make is treating a portfolio of multiple cryptocurrencies as ‘diversified.’ In practice, the correlation between Bitcoin and most altcoins is extremely high during market downturns — all assets in the category tend to fall together. Furthermore, the ECB’s analysis suggests that most altcoins lack even the network-effect arguments that partially support Bitcoin’s valuation. For most altcoins, a floor of zero is a far more credible scenario than for Bitcoin specifically.
Part 9: The Five Questions Every Crypto Investor Should Answer
Rather than prescribing a conclusion, we offer five questions that honestly confront the core issues raised in this analysis.
1. What is your thesis for why demand will persist? If your answer is ‘because other people will keep wanting it,’ you are describing a greater fool theory, not an investment thesis. A genuine thesis should articulate what Bitcoin provides that cannot be obtained more cheaply or reliably through other means.
2. What would cause you to change your mind? If you cannot specify conditions under which you would sell Bitcoin, you are holding a faith-based position. Every investment thesis should have falsifiable conditions. Specifying them in advance prevents rationalisation after the fact.
3. Are you relying on historical price patterns without understanding the mechanism? Past halving cycles have been bullish. However, as Bitcoin Magazine itself acknowledges, every cycle has seen claims that ‘this time is different.’ Pattern extrapolation without causal understanding is unreliable, especially for an asset with only four full cycles of history.
4. How would your financial situation change if Bitcoin went to zero? Be honest. If a complete loss would materially harm your ability to pay your mortgage, fund retirement, or meet major obligations, your current allocation is probably too high, regardless of your convictions about Bitcoin’s long-run potential.
5. Do you understand the distinction between ‘network value’ and ‘fair value’? Bitcoin may have enormous network value based on the number of users and the size of the ecosystem. Network value is real. However, it does not guarantee that the current price is ‘fair’ — speculative assets regularly trade at large premiums or discounts to any reasonable estimate of network value. The two concepts are related but not identical.
Part 10: Verdict — Is Bitcoin’s Floor Zero?
Having examined the arguments from every angle, we reach the following conclusions.
In the strict classical economic sense, yes — Bitcoin’s floor could be zero. There is no industrial utility, no cash flow, no legal tender status, and no institutional obligation to hold it. If collective belief in Bitcoin’s value ever fully evaporates, no fundamental anchor prevents a complete price collapse. The ECB and RBA’s positions on this are technically correct.
In practical terms, a zero outcome has become less likely over time, though not impossible. The combination of spot ETF adoption, institutional infrastructure, fixed supply, network effect, and the Lindy Effect creates structural resistance to zero that was absent in 2010 and much weaker in 2017. The mining cost framework, while imperfect as Bernstein notes, does provide a behavioural (if not mechanical) support level that has historically coincided with major accumulation periods.
The more honest statement of the bear case is not ‘zero’ but ‘near-zero.’ As Peter Schiff himself concedes, the practical distinction between Bitcoin at $100 and Bitcoin at $0 is essentially meaningless for an investor who bought at $80,000. The real risk is not necessarily absolute zero — it is a loss of 90% to 99% that constitutes financial ruin for heavily allocated investors.
The intrinsic value question is real but somewhat misframes the debate. Bitcoin’s value rests on network consensus rather than physical utility. That is a different foundation from gold or equities, but it is not categorically weaker than fiat currency’s value foundation. The more important question is whether that consensus is durable over a 50- or 100-year horizon — and that question has no reliable answer today.
The floor debate is ultimately about the durability of human belief in a technology that is 16 years old. That is not a question economics can answer definitively — but it is a question every Bitcoin holder should confront honestly.
Part 11: Further Reading and Resources
For those who want to go deeper, the following resources represent the best primary sources on the themes covered in this article:
Bernstein Research: Does Bitcoin Have a Floor Price? — A rigorous institutional analysis of why commodity floor models don’t apply to Bitcoin.
Bitcoin Magazine: Mathematically Predicting Bitcoin Price Floor — Quantitative cycle analysis using MVRV ratio and production cost metrics.
ECB Speech: Paradise Lost? How Crypto Failed to Deliver on Its Promises — The ECB’s case for why cryptos have not delivered on their structural promises.
Reserve Bank of Australia: Digital Currencies Explainer — A central bank’s clear-eyed explanation of cryptocurrency value foundations.
Bruegel Institute: Cryptocurrencies and Monetary Policy — Academic policy analysis of whether crypto can credibly challenge official currencies.
Yahoo Finance: Bitcoin Price To $0? Here’s Why the Zero Dollar Bitcoin Narrative Is Growing — A balanced look at the growing bear case.
Futurism: As Crash Deepens, Investors Say Bitcoin Is Headed for Zero Dollars — Commentary from prominent sceptics, including Schiff and Burry.
Spend some time for your future.
To deepen your understanding of today’s evolving financial landscape, we recommend exploring the following articles:
Balance Transfer Credit Cards: How to Crush High-Interest Debt
War Economy Chapter 9: Sanctions, Trade Wars, and Economic Weapons Explained
How to Identify Profitable Startup Ideas Solving Problems People Pay For
Escape Paycheck Hell: Build Emergency Fund, Kill Debt, Invest
Explore these articles to get a grasp on the new changes in the financial world.
Legal Disclaimer
This article is for informational and educational purposes only. Nothing in this article constitutes financial, investment, or legal advice. Cryptocurrency markets are highly volatile and speculative. Past price patterns do not guarantee future performance. Always consult a qualified financial advisor before making any investment decision. The author and publisher accept no liability for investment decisions made in reliance on this content.
References
[1] Bernstein, ‘Does Bitcoin Have a Floor Price?’ Bernstein.com, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.bernstein.com/our-insights/insights/2026/articles/does-bitcoin-have-a-floor-price.html
[2] Bitcoin Magazine, ‘Mathematically Predicting Bitcoin Price Floor,’ BitcoinMagazine.com. [Online]. Available: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/markets/predicting-bitcoin-price-floor
[3] V. Tangermann, ‘As Crash Deepens, Investors Say Bitcoin Is Headed for Zero Dollars,’ Futurism.com. [Online]. Available: https://futurism.com/future-society/crash-bitcoin-headed-zero-dollars
[4] Yahoo Finance, ‘Popular Hedge Fund Manager Predicts Bitcoin Will Crash to Zero,’ Finance.Yahoo.com. [Online]. Available: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/popular-hedge-fund-manager-predicts-153018672.html
[5] K. Robson, ‘Bitcoin Price To $0? Here’s Why The Zero Dollar Bitcoin Narrative Is Growing,’ Yahoo Finance. [Online]. Available: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bitcoin-price-0-heres-why-100215567.html
[6] European Central Bank, ‘Paradise Lost? How Crypto Failed to Deliver on Its Promises,’ ECB.Europa.EU, June 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2023/html/ecb.sp230623_1~80751450e6.en.html
[7] Bruegel Institute, ‘Cryptocurrencies and Monetary Policy,’ Bruegel.org Policy Contribution No. 10, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.bruegel.org/system/files/wp_attachments/PC-10_2018_2.pdf
[8] Reserve Bank of Australia, ‘Digital Currencies Explainer,’ RBA.gov.au. [Online]. Available: https://www.rba.gov.au/education/resources/explainers/cryptocurrencies.html
[9] BBE Journal, ‘Cryptocurrency Market Dynamics: Trends, Volatility, and Regulatory Challenges,’ BBEJournal.com. [Online]. Available: https://bbejournal.com/BBE/article/download/760/696/1664
[10] E. T. Cheah and J. Fry, ‘Speculative Bubbles in Bitcoin Markets? An Empirical Investigation into the Fundamental Value of Bitcoin,’ Economics Letters, vol. 130, pp. 32-36, 2015. DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2015.02.029
[11] L. Kristoufek, ‘What Are the Main Drivers of the Bitcoin Price? Evidence from Wavelet Coherence Analysis,’ PLoS One, vol. 10, no. 4, 2015. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0123923
[12] A. Urquhart, ‘The Inefficiency of Bitcoin,’ Economics Letters, vol. 148, pp. 80-82, 2016. DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2016.09.019
[13] S. Nakamoto, ‘Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System,’ 2008. [Online]. Available: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
