Ran Neuner on Bitcoin and the future

[legiteum]

I thought this X post by a long-time Bitcoin booster would lead to some interesting discussion here. Here you go...


For the first time in 12 years, I’m questioning Bitcoin’s thesis.

It’s not the drawdown that concerns me; it’s how Bitcoin responded when markets genuinely moved into risk and uncertainty.

$BTC evolved from “peer-to-peer cash” into “digital gold.”

We fought for ETF approval.
We fought for institutional access.
We wanted it inside the system.

Now it is. There is nothing to fight for anymore.

So when tariffs, currency tension, and fiscal instability hit, this was the moment Bitcoin was supposed to behave like a store of value.

Instead, capital ran to gold.

Institutions had access. There were no barriers left.

That’s the uncomfortable part.

If it’s not used as cash, and it didn’t meaningfully absorb the stress bid, then what exactly is the narrative?

Retail participation is near multi-year lows.

Early evangelists have largely exited.
Even aggressive weekly buyers can’t generate sustained momentum.
That doesn’t mean Bitcoin dies.

But it does mean the thesis isn’t unquestioned anymore.

What’s interesting is I’m worried about Bitcoin, not crypto.

Because the next wave isn’t ideological.

AI agents won’t use banks.

They won’t use credit cards.
They’ll need instant, programmable settlement rails.
That’s crypto.

[headingnorth]

Ran Neuner should be worried about bitcoin.

Like every crypto influencer this idiot has been heavily promoting shitcoins nonstop for years which has effectively helped to dilute and debase bitcoin.
Who needs a money printer when you have an endless supply of shitcoins and trillions of shitcoin tokens constantly being printed everyday and
dumped onto the market? And he is part of the problem.

The 21 million fixed supply of bitcoins (which isn't even really fixed to begin with) is meaningless when 99% of people in the market are constantly
trading in and out of the shitcoin casino that has no supply limits.

[legiteum]

Ran Neuner should be worried about bitcoin.

Like every crypto influencer this idiot has been heavily promoting shitcoins nonstop for years which has effectively helped to dilute and debase bitcoin.
Who needs a money printer when you have an endless supply of shitcoins and trillions of shitcoin tokens constantly being printed everyday and
dumped onto the market? And he is part of the problem.

The 21 million fixed supply of bitcoins (which isn't even really fixed to begin with) is meaningless when 99% of people in the market are constantly
trading in and out of the shitcoin casino that has no supply limits.

He's been a Bitcoin booster for years.

But you make a good point about Bitcoin's 21M limit: there's no limit to like-for-like competitors. Does Bitcoin have any actual technical advantage over the other major cryptos besides the name, "Bitcoin"? In other words, why especially would you invest in Bitcoin instead of ETH, XRP, DOGE, and so on? What would be the advantage to the investor besides brand name? And what is going to keep Bitcoin's brand name on top? A few years ago the name, "MySpace" was on top, and Members Only was cool once too. Brand names change with the whims of consumers. How do we know that won't happen to Bitcoin?

[suzanne5223]

$BTC evolved from “peer-to-peer cash” into “digital gold.”

Bitcoin is still p2p cash for those who want to use it that way.

We fought for ETF approval.
We fought for institutional access.
We wanted it inside the system.

We never fought for ETF, and institutional access. It's institutions that fought Bitcoin, and when they see that it's a lost battle from the get go they choose to join the system, just like the saying, "if you can't beat them, join them."
We only hope they see the potential of Bitcoin as a store of value, but most Bitcoiners never look into the disadvantages that will come with institutional investors being the major market player.

So when tariffs, currency tension, and fiscal instability hit, this was the moment Bitcoin was supposed to behave like a store of value.
Instead, capital ran to gold.

This happened due to the Bitcoin market correction season, and since the institutional investors are the major market players, we should expect them to move to Gold since it's the store of value they used before seeing Bitcoin as an alternative.

Early evangelists have largely exited.
Even aggressive weekly buyers can’t generate sustained momentum.
That doesn’t mean Bitcoin dies.

Yes, it doesn't mean the end of BTC since it is a normal trend that always happens after the BTC halving market effect. But how do you know the early evangelists have largely exited the market?
There's a difference between taking profit, buying low, and exiting the market.

But it does mean the thesis isn’t unquestioned anymore.

What’s interesting is I’m worried about Bitcoin, not crypto.

Because the next wave isn’t ideological.

There's no reason for you to be worried about Bitcoin because it's following the 4 year cycle procedure. What you can do is seize the benefit that comes with the market.

[headingnorth]

Ran Neuner should be worried about bitcoin.

Like every crypto influencer this idiot has been heavily promoting shitcoins nonstop for years which has effectively helped to dilute and debase bitcoin.
Who needs a money printer when you have an endless supply of shitcoins and trillions of shitcoin tokens constantly being printed everyday and
dumped onto the market? And he is part of the problem.

The 21 million fixed supply of bitcoins (which isn't even really fixed to begin with) is meaningless when 99% of people in the market are constantly
trading in and out of the shitcoin casino that has no supply limits.

But you make a good point about Bitcoin's 21M limit: there's no limit to like-for-like competitors. Does Bitcoin have any actual technical advantage over the other major cryptos besides the name, "Bitcoin"? In other words, why especially would you invest in Bitcoin instead of ETH, XRP, DOGE, and so on? What would be the advantage to the investor besides brand name? And what is going to keep Bitcoin's brand name on top? A few years ago the name, "MySpace" was on top, and Members Only was cool once too. Brand names change with the whims of consumers. How do we know that won't happen to Bitcoin?

Exactly. Shitcoins are a constant distraction from bitcoin because people are mindless sheep who will naturally gravitate
toward the latest shiny new object or whatever cool new token social media is hyping up at the moment.

That is why the government and Wall Street whales are never scared of bitcoin. They don't have to do anything to hurt or destroy bitcoin,
because the shitcoin casino will do it for them. And they will make a quick buck while pumping and dumping it both ways.

[legiteum]

$BTC evolved from “peer-to-peer cash” into “digital gold.”

Bitcoin is still p2p cash for those who want to use it that way.

I think what he means here is, "almost nobody uses it that way", which is true.

Exactly. Shitcoins are a constant distraction from bitcoin because people are mindless sheep who will naturally gravitate
toward the latest shiny new object or whatever cool new token social media is hyping up at the moment.

But if these "shitcoins" do exactly the same thing as Bitcoin (or even work somewhat better e.g. they are faster and have lower tx fees), why is this a bad thing?

Why, in other words, is every crypto not called Bitcoin a "shitcoin"?

For instance, every NFL football team not called the Eagles is a shitteam, and that's the objective truth, but I don't see how that can work with mere technology like a cryptocurrency.

[headingnorth]

Exactly. Shitcoins are a constant distraction from bitcoin because people are mindless sheep who will naturally gravitate
toward the latest shiny new object or whatever cool new token social media is hyping up at the moment.

But if these "shitcoins" do exactly the same thing as Bitcoin (or even work somewhat better e.g. they are faster and have lower tx fees), why is this a bad thing?

Why, in other words, is every crypto not called Bitcoin a "shitcoin"?

Well for one, the millions of shitcoins on the market have an infinite supply that gets dumped onto the market that is constantly diverting away
dollars that doesn't go into bitcoin. Crypto influencers like Ran are too stupid too realize how their endless promoting of their shitcoins hurts and
devalues bitcoin just like how the money printer devalues the dollar and other fiat currencies. And then he wonders why the price of bitcoin has
been crashing for so long? Or maybe they do realize it but don't care because they get paid to pump and dump their memecoins onto the suckers who follow them.

For instance, every NFL football team not called the Eagles is a shitteam, and that's the objective truth, but I don't see how that can work with mere technology like a cryptocurrency.

You are seriously comparing garbage like dogecoin, fartcoin, pepecoin, cardano, Trumpcoin, etc. (the list is endless) to an NFL football team?
LOL! That's a good one. An NFL team is a real business that generates legitimate income. Unlike these millions of worthless crypto tokens that are
little more than pump and dump scams that no one knows what on God's green earth they are even good for, and why you need 50 million different variations
of each one that does exactly the same thing as the other 50 million. They are little more than the modern equivalent of penny stocks
(of which 99% are pump and dumps or outright scams) with a shiny new digital face.

People love shiny new objects, but a turd is still a turd no matter what you dress it up with.

[legiteum]

But if these "shitcoins" do exactly the same thing as Bitcoin (or even work somewhat better e.g. they are faster and have lower tx fees), why is this a bad thing?

Why, in other words, is every crypto not called Bitcoin a "shitcoin"?

Well for one, the millions of shitcoins on the market have an infinite supply that gets dumped onto the market that is constantly diverting away
dollars that doesn't go into bitcoin. Crypto influencers like Ran are too stupid too realize how their endless promoting of their shitcoins hurts and
devalues bitcoin just like how the money printer devalues the dollar and other fiat currencies. And then he wonders why the price of bitcoin has
been crashing for so long? Or maybe they do realize it but don't care because they get paid to pump and dump their bags onto the suckers who follow them.

Most leading cryptos like ETH, SOL, XRP, and DOGE all have limited supplies, so that is obviously not a differentiator for Bitcoin.

Now, it is definitely true that introducing a product that does exactly the same thing as an existing product for a lower price and/or with more desirable features may diminish the value of that existing product, but that's true for all kinds of products, not just cryptocurrencies. And that's the nature of a free market.

Would you like instead to live in a world where the government ensures there is only one brand for product for every single product category? One car maker? One brand of shoes? One computer company? One everything? I recall they tried this sort of economic system in the 20th century in certain countries...

For instance, every NFL football team not called the Eagles is a shitteam, and that's the objective truth, but I don't see how that can work with mere technology like a cryptocurrency.

You are seriously comparing garbage like dogecoin, fartcoin, pepecoin, cardano, Trumpcoin, etc. (the list is endless) to an NFL football team?

No, it was... an analogy...

[d5000]

So when tariffs, currency tension, and fiscal instability hit, this was the moment Bitcoin was supposed to behave like a store of value.
Instead, capital ran to gold.

It's a bit early to draw a conclusion from a year of market movements. Gold is still much more established as a SoV in "turbulent times", and Bitcoin is been seen as a risky, speculative asset. This means that the pure SoV narrative for Bitcoin is not completely solid in 2026. It is still too volatile.

But I will repeat and repeat: the volatility is lowering, in a few years we will achieve gold-like volatility for Bitcoin, meaning that the perception of a risky speculative asset will change.

If it’s not used as cash, and it didn’t meaningfully absorb the stress bid, then what exactly is the narrative?

Cash usage is difficult while volatility is high. So I'm still not worried. The "quantum leap" would happen when volatility lowers to about half of the current value to the downside -- this would mean that you'd never fear to lose more than 50% in a bear market. Only then I would expect a higher "usage as cash".

Nevertheless, some merchants I never had thought of, suddenly added a Bitcoin option in the last years.

Conclusion: The narrative is: further volatility reduction, THEN real usage as "SoV" and "cash".

Retail participation is near multi-year lows.

Source? What does multi-year mean? 2 years? 5 years? 10 years?

They won’t use credit cards.
They’ll need instant, programmable settlement rails.
That’s crypto.

Bitcoin sidechains can deliver that. There are already decently decentralized and working concepts with dynamic multisig federations like Threshold's tBTC, even if this example is in my opinion not the end of the evolution as it still uses a premined token. Future sidechains won't need that.

If you don't want to use a stablecoin, which is basically using a bank with another name, then you need an asset with relatively large capitalization, security and reliability. Bitcoin is the most convenient choice, Ethereum and other "cryptos" are even more volatile and less capitalized. So why would you use an altcoin if a Bitcoin sidechain is all you need for your machine-to-machine payments, if this AI agent utopia even comes true?

[headingnorth]

But if these "shitcoins" do exactly the same thing as Bitcoin (or even work somewhat better e.g. they are faster and have lower tx fees), why is this a bad thing?

Why, in other words, is every crypto not called Bitcoin a "shitcoin"?

Well for one, the millions of shitcoins on the market have an infinite supply that gets dumped onto the market that is constantly diverting away
dollars that doesn't go into bitcoin. Crypto influencers like Ran are too stupid too realize how their endless promoting of their shitcoins hurts and
devalues bitcoin just like how the money printer devalues the dollar and other fiat currencies. And then he wonders why the price of bitcoin has
been crashing for so long? Or maybe they do realize it but don't care because they get paid to pump and dump their bags onto the suckers who follow them.

Most leading cryptos like ETH, SOL, XRP, and DOGE all have limited supplies, so that is obviously not a differentiator for Bitcoin.

LOL your claims are just false. ETH, SOL and DOGE all have infinite supplies according to Coinmarketcap.

Again you have proven my point. Shitcoiners like yourself have no idea of even the most basic facts of what you are buying.
Let me clue you in. Do you see the symbol highlighted in yellow that resembles the number eight laying on its side? That is the symbol for infinity.


Symbol for Infinity.

Do you need the definition of the word as well? You can look it up on Google.
It means the supply of something is unlimited.




https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/ethereum/


https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/solana/



https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/dogecoin/

[legiteum]

But if these "shitcoins" do exactly the same thing as Bitcoin (or even work somewhat better e.g. they are faster and have lower tx fees), why is this a bad thing?

Why, in other words, is every crypto not called Bitcoin a "shitcoin"?

Well for one, the millions of shitcoins on the market have an infinite supply [...]

Most leading cryptos like ETH, SOL, XRP, and DOGE all have limited supplies, so that is obviously not a differentiator for Bitcoin.

LOL your claims are just false. ETH, SOL and DOGE all have infinite supplies according to Coinmarketcap.

If you actually bothered to read their rules, they are not unlimited, but rather expand the supply according to a schedule. This is in the source code of their distributions, just like Bitcoin's hard limit of 21 million is in its source code, so you are not trusting any individual or company, you are trusting the code, just like Bitcoin.

But if that's too complicated, the vibrant free market we currently enjoy offers many alternatives that works exactly like Bitcoin:

https://coinswitch.co/switch/crypto/best-crypto-with-limited-supply/

It's sounding more and more here like Bitcoin really doesn't have any functional difference between many of its competitors... Maybe there are other factors I am missing?

[headingnorth]

But if these "shitcoins" do exactly the same thing as Bitcoin (or even work somewhat better e.g. they are faster and have lower tx fees), why is this a bad thing?

Why, in other words, is every crypto not called Bitcoin a "shitcoin"?

Well for one, the millions of shitcoins on the market have an infinite supply [...]

Most leading cryptos like ETH, SOL, XRP, and DOGE all have limited supplies, so that is obviously not a differentiator for Bitcoin.

LOL your claims are just false. ETH, SOL and DOGE all have infinite supplies according to Coinmarketcap.

If you actually bothered to read their rules, they are not unlimited, but rather expand the supply according to a schedule. This is in the source code of their distributions, just like Bitcoin's hard limit of 21 million is in its source code, so you are not trusting any individual or company, you are trusting the code, just like Bitcoin.

Spoken like a true snake oil salesman LMAO. The rules of ETH, DOGE, SOL in fact state the supply is not capped in anyway.
That is called an infinite or unlimited supply. That is what the infinity symbol stands for. Try opening up a dictionary.

"Expand the supply according to a schedule." A completely meaningless statement that could also be said of bitcoin.
In other words crypto VCs are free to pump and dump unlimited amounts of "digital tokens" onto clueless suckers on a fixed schedule.

Yeah, that sounds like a great scheme everyone should invest their retirement money into. Good luck with that.

It doesn't even matter if a particular altcoin is capped or not. The point is the ability to create new altcoin projects (each with their own supply)
is unlimited, which expands the total supply of all altcoins to infinity. How many gazillions of shitcoins are out there now and gazillions more
being launched each day?

It doesn't matter if ethereum is capped or not. Like Solana, ETH is a major platform for creating and launching an infinite number of brand new altcoins and memecoins to get the suckers all excited about the next shiny new object to be launched that promises to 100X your money and make you the next crypto gazillionaire LMAO.

[legiteum]

The rules of ETH, DOGE, SOL in fact state the supply is not capped in anyway.

The supply is expanded on a set schedule, but I understand that it may be too complicated for some people to understand. So Bitcoin is better for many people who can't deal with that complexity. But so are the other cryptos that are exactly like Bitcoin in terms of the supply.

It doesn't even matter if a particular altcoin is capped or not. The point is the ability to create new altcoin projects (each with their own supply)
is unlimited, which expands the total supply of all altcoins to infinity. How many gazillions of shitcoins are out there now and gazillions more
being launched each day?

I understand your concern, which is that many competing products that are functionally equivalent to Bitcoin exist, and it's relatively easy to make a competitor to Bitcoin, which diminishes the value of Bitcoin. You seem to be in agreement with Ran Neuner in that regard, even if your remedy (communism, I gather) is different than Neuner's, who seems to assume we will remain a free society.

[headingnorth]

The rules of ETH, DOGE, SOL in fact state the supply is not capped in anyway.

The supply is expanded on a set schedule, but I understand that it may be too complicated for some people to understand. So Bitcoin is better for many people who can't deal with that complexity. But so are the other cryptos that are exactly like Bitcoin in terms of the supply.

It doesn't even matter if a particular altcoin is capped or not. The point is the ability to create new altcoin projects (each with their own supply)
is unlimited, which expands the total supply of all altcoins to infinity. How many gazillions of shitcoins are out there now and gazillions more
being launched each day?

I understand your concern, which is that many competing products that are functionally equivalent to Bitcoin exist, and it's relatively easy to make a competitor to Bitcoin, which diminishes the value of Bitcoin. You seem to be in agreement with Ran Neuner in that regard, even if your remedy (communism, I gather) is different than Neuner's, who seems to assume we will remain a free society.

You are free to create shitcoins and scam the suckers all you want under the current laws. I never said you weren't.
And I am free to express my opinion about what I think of the crypto racket whether you like it or not.

As i said many times on this forum Bitcoin has its owns serious flaws imo and it is far from perfect. The problem with pumping out  anything on a fixed schedule, whether it be with bitcoin or altcoins, is that you cannot adjust for the current level of demand. If the market can only absorb 100 bitcoins per day but the network is pumping out its usual fixed supply of 450 bitcoins per day then you are flooding the market with unwanted supply that eventually causes the price to collapse.

That is not how the free market is supposed to work, but that is how communism works. When demand for the iPhone is low Apple can produce less iPhones.
It makes no sense to flood the market with excess inventory the market cannot absorb. But that is what happens with crypto because everything is
is produced on a FIXED SCHEDULE you cannot change like you said. The output can't be adjusted to meet the current demand. It cost a lot of money to produce iPhones so Apple would be losing a lot of money making more stuff than they can sell.

But the people who create shitcoins don't care about that because it costs them nothing to print however many tokens they want out of thin air.
If it costs you virtually nothing to produce something for almost no cost but you can sell it for real dollars, well that sounds like a pretty nice racket to me.

[legiteum]

That is not how the free market is supposed to work, but that is how communism works. When demand for the iPhone is low Apple can produce less iPhones.
It makes no sense to flood the market with excess inventory the market cannot absorb.

You keep using the term, "unwanted supply", but the supply is not "unwanted", it's merely unable to find a buyer at that price level. If the price is lowered, then the supply is "wanted" again, and it sells. This is how a free market works.

Anyhow, back to the subject of the OP, it's clear that Bitcoin has serious competition in the marketplace, which will inevitably drive the price lower, so I think that aspect of Ran's post was accurate.

[suzanne5223]

$BTC evolved from “peer-to-peer cash” into “digital gold.”

Bitcoin is still p2p cash for those who want to use it that way.

I think what he means here is, "almost nobody uses it that way", which is true.

IF that's what he mean that i will agree to that, and I believe it is something we should expect as Bitcoin is getting more exposure with the inclusion of more users. What I don't like is the use of CEX as a wallet and investors investment in Bitcoin ETF when they can invest in it themselves and hold it in self custody wallet, because if this continues in the future, there's a  chance for the centralization of Bitcoin.

[noorman0]

-snip-
So when tariffs, currency tension, and fiscal instability hit, this was the moment Bitcoin was supposed to behave like a store of value.

Instead, capital ran to gold.

We haven't reached that point yet. I don't believe the "digital gold" narrative was generated by a sane mind, but by a "smart" mind; and that needs to be reiterated by every professional wanting to re-enter the market.

The fact is, the world's banks hold physical gold. That's not just a narrative, but an ontological understanding that's been ingrained for centuries. You don't even need to convince people living in the third world that the price of gold always rises or that it can be used in a real way without technical barriers.

[Alphakilo]

I thought this X post by a long-time Bitcoin booster would lead to some interesting discussion here. Here you go...


For the first time in 12 years, I’m questioning Bitcoin’s thesis.

It’s not the drawdown that concerns me; it’s how Bitcoin responded when markets genuinely moved into risk and uncertainty.

$BTC evolved from “peer-to-peer cash” into “digital gold.”

We fought for ETF approval.
We fought for institutional access.
We wanted it inside the system.

Now it is. There is nothing to fight for anymore.

So when tariffs, currency tension, and fiscal instability hit, this was the moment Bitcoin was supposed to behave like a store of value.

Instead, capital ran to gold.

Institutions had access. There were no barriers left.

That’s the uncomfortable part.

If it’s not used as cash, and it didn’t meaningfully absorb the stress bid, then what exactly is the narrative?

Retail participation is near multi-year lows.

Early evangelists have largely exited.
Even aggressive weekly buyers can’t generate sustained momentum.
That doesn’t mean Bitcoin dies.

But it does mean the thesis isn’t unquestioned anymore.

What’s interesting is I’m worried about Bitcoin, not crypto.

Because the next wave isn’t ideological.

AI agents won’t use banks.

They won’t use credit cards.
They’ll need instant, programmable settlement rails.
That’s crypto.

What I can grasp from this thoughts from Ran Neuner is that he is basically seeing Bitcoin as a dream that is already dead in the current wake of AI inclusivity, because it is now no more just a store of value or digital gold, but the Blockchain technology itself is what is being used to facilitate the advancement of Ai.
So what is the point of holding Bitcoin if not that we expect the price to go up and thus we sell and make great returns? After achieving this mark, what's next?

Bitcoin is obviously now a victim of its own success from what I can deduce, because it has now lost its soul to machine to machine utility. That is, it is more like a utilitarian future for Blockchain technology than a store of value or digital gold.

[Ambatman]

How do we know that won't happen to Bitcoin?

We can never be sure of the future but Bitcoin isn't getting replaced by shitty coins
It embodies what Digital currency truly is
Revolutionary and if it fails all cryotocurrency fails. It's like the trust and face of crypto
Hence why every sensible coin owner try and boost it's adoption.

Most leading cryptos like ETH, SOL, XRP, and DOGE all have limited supplies, so that is obviously not a differentiator for Bitcoin

Source please and this is false
They can be increased as they are not capped. Fancy way of imitating the flaws in fiat.
And also if Bitcoin 21 million limit is tempered with it seize been Bitcoin.
Majority chain can continue with the one that sticks with consensus.

We fought for ETF approval.
We fought for institutional access.
We wanted it inside the system.

Nothing is free
There's always a cost
Now many are looking at Bitcoin like stock
If the market tanks it falls
A currency That Strives in crisis though it's still young and would get better
Even Gold isn't doing well now. Safe haven doesn't mean it has completely eliminated volatility.