From "Digital Gold" to "Hobby Toy"? Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales predicts a bleak future for Bitcoin

When a pioneer of the internet begins writing a “eulogy” for another decentralized technology, the crypto world finds it hard to ignore. Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales recently expressed a highly pessimistic long-term outlook for BTC. He doesn’t believe Bitcoin will go to zero, but predicts its price will fall to a level “only suitable for hobbyists to tinker with.” As Bitcoin’s price has significantly retreated from its all-time high and market sentiment is fragile, Wales’s statement is like a stone thrown into a calm lake, sparking deep discussions about Bitcoin’s core value. This article will analyze the logic and controversy behind this view, starting from the event itself and combining on-chain and macro data.

Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales shared his decades-long perspective on Bitcoin’s future on social media. He clearly states that although the Bitcoin network itself is designed to be robust and unlikely to disappear easily, its functions as a currency and store of value have “completely failed.” Therefore, he predicts that by 2050, based on current valuations, BTC could be worth less than $10,000, or even lower. He views Bitcoin merely as a speculative asset and sees no signs of widespread adoption yet.

Bitcoin in the Macro Storm: Falling from Historic Highs on the Eve of a Downturn

This bearish outlook isn’t isolated but occurs amid a recent period of sustained market weakness for Bitcoin.

• October 2025: BTC hits a record high of $126,080.
• February 2026: Market sentiment sharply turns. Due to global trade tensions, geopolitical risks, and weakness in the US tech stocks, the crypto market experiences a “crash-like” correction. BTC briefly drops below $63,000, nearly halving its market cap from the all-time high.
• February 25, 2026: Wales makes an extremely pessimistic prediction for BTC over the next two decades during a price-sensitive period. According to Gate data, as of February 27, 2026, BTC was at $67,731.50, down 0.7% in 24 hours, with a 30-day decline of 25.91%.

Market Cap Shrinkage and Leverage Liquidations: Data Reveals Structural Fragility

While Wales’s prediction focuses on macro narratives, it also reflects deep insights into market structure and user behavior. We can cross-verify from several angles:

• Price and Market Cap Status

As of February 27, 2026, according to Gate, Bitcoin’s price was $67,731.50, with a 24-hour trading volume of $1.13 billion, a market cap of $1.31 trillion, and a market share of 55.37%. Circulating supply was about 19.99 million BTC, close to the max supply of 21 million. Despite the high current price, its decline over the past year has been -31.48%, indicating long-term holders are facing severe unrealized losses.

• Structural Reversal in Capital Flows

During the height of the “digital gold” narrative, spot ETFs were seen as a highway for traditional capital to enter. Recently, data shows that when macro risks emerge, funds are not flowing into Bitcoin as a safe haven. Over the past three months, US-listed gold ETFs attracted over $16 billion, while spot Bitcoin ETFs experienced about $3.3 billion in outflows. This stark contrast undermines the foundation of the “BTC as digital gold” narrative.

• Leverage and Liquidation Vulnerability

Bitcoin’s pricing power increasingly depends on offshore derivatives markets, where high leverage is common. Analysis shows that when prices break key support levels, automatic liquidation engines trigger chain reactions, causing rapid price drops within minutes. This inherent volatility mechanism makes BTC difficult to fulfill its roles as a stable store of value or medium of exchange.

Bull-Bear Battles: Three Market Sentiments Ignited by Wales’s Remarks

Market sentiment around Wales’s comments is divided into three main camps:

Why Did the Core Narratives of “Digital Gold” and “Payment Tool” Fail?

Wales’s criticism targets Bitcoin’s most fundamental narratives—payment method and store of value. We need to examine whether these narratives are “collapsing.”

• The Payment Narrative’s Substitution

The vision of Bitcoin as a payment method is being fully replaced by stablecoins. Clear US regulations (like the GENIUS Act) are promoting USD-backed stablecoins as compliant payment infrastructure. Even Jack Dorsey’s Cash App, once a Bitcoin evangelist, now supports stablecoins, signaling that the main battlefield for payments has shifted.

• The Failure of the “Digital Gold” Narrative

Against the backdrop of geopolitical conflicts (e.g., US-Iran tensions) and trade frictions, traditional safe-haven assets like gold and silver have risen, while BTC has fallen in tandem. Markets have validated that BTC is not a safe haven but a high-risk asset highly correlated with the Nasdaq index. Its price volatility is driven more by global liquidity conditions than by safe-haven demand.

• The Shift of Speculative Attention

Bitcoin was once at the center of speculative culture, but this is changing. Prediction markets like Polymarket, with their event-driven trading, are attracting speculative funds and attention that once belonged to crypto. As “dopamine hunters” find new playgrounds, the marginal buying power of BTC could be further weakened.

Chain Reactions: Institutional Confidence Wavers and Balance Sheet Crises

Whether Wales’s prediction proves correct or not, his words and the current market environment are having tangible impacts on the crypto industry.

• Erosion of Institutional Confidence

When internet pioneers like Wales question Bitcoin’s long-term value, and major banks like Standard Chartered sharply cut their targets, it significantly influences traditional institutions’ allocation decisions. Institutional capital seeks not only returns but logical consistency. If the “digital gold” narrative is discredited, it becomes hard for institutions to justify allocating funds to a high-risk, illiquid asset.

• Corporate Balance Sheet Strategy Crisis

Companies like MicroStrategy (now renamed Strategy Inc.) have used stock or bond issuance to buy BTC, creating a self-reinforcing cycle. As BTC prices fall, these companies’ stock prices drop even more, with some market caps falling below their Bitcoin holdings’ value. This breakdown of the “balance sheet arbitrage” model will deter other listed firms from following suit, cutting off an important source of incremental capital.

• Developer Ecosystem and Innovation Outflow

If Bitcoin is long regarded as a “hobbyist’s toy,” its network upgrades and developer ecosystem may stagnate. Conversely, funds and talent will flow toward areas with clearer use cases, such as DeFi, asset tokenization (RWA), and Layer 2 scaling solutions (especially those serving stablecoin payments).

From “Hobbyist Toy” to “National Reserve”: Three Possible Futures for Bitcoin in 2050

Based on the above analysis, we can envision several evolution paths for BTC over the next 5 to 25 years:

• Scenario 1: Narrative Collapse and Long-term Price Depression (Fact/Speculation)
  • Logic: If the core narratives of “digital gold” and “payment tool” continue to be discredited and no new compelling value propositions emerge, BTC will become a collectible or “digital antique.” Its price will be mainly supported by core believers and enthusiasts, entering a long-term low “hobbyist” level, as Wales suggests. (Speculative)
  • Facts: The “digital gold” narrative has already failed under macro stress tests; stablecoins have fully taken over the payment space. (Fact)
• Scenario 2: Establishment as a Digital Reserve Asset (Speculative)
  • Logic: Sovereign states (especially those under sanctions or with unstable currencies) or large institutions, after trying all alternatives, may see Bitcoin as the only unfreezable, censorship-resistant neutral asset. This “ultimate reserve” demand, though niche, could sustain its market cap at trillions of dollars.
  • Facts: Bitcoin’s network is highly secure and censorship-resistant, but its volatility and poor user experience (storage, transactions) are major obstacles to becoming a national reserve asset. (Fact)
• Scenario 3: Technological Disruption and Zeroing Risk (Fact/Speculation)
  • Logic: Wales admits two technical zeroing risks: cryptographic collapse (e.g., quantum computing breakthroughs) or successful 51% attacks. Although low probability, if it occurs, it would destroy trust in Bitcoin entirely. (Speculative)
  • Facts: Quantum computing development indeed poses a theoretical threat to current cryptography. (Fact)

Conclusion

Wales’s pessimistic forecast is less a price prophecy than a profound question about meaning. As Bitcoin’s most celebrated narratives—“digital gold” and “peer-to-peer electronic cash”—fade in the face of reality, it must confront a fundamental question: if it cannot serve as currency or store value, why does it exist?

Currently, Bitcoin’s resilience lies in the network itself, not in price stability or broad utility. It may still exist in 2050, perhaps valued as a “digital antique,” with some collectible worth. To rekindle hopes of becoming a mainstream asset, the Bitcoin community must find unique practical value beyond stablecoins and prediction markets. Otherwise, Wales’s envisioned future of “hobbyists” may not be just a worry—perhaps it’s inevitable.