All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 14, 2025 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
23:44
Is Bitcoin a Ponzi Scheme?
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
All right.
All right.
How you doing, everybody?
Stefan von Molyneux from the house of Bitcoin maximalists.
And a fellow posted on X saying Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme.
Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme.
Well, that's pretty horrifying.
That sounds pretty terrible.
That sounds pretty awful.
And let us look at that.
So not everything that raises in value that you don't understand is a Ponzi scheme.
That's just really, really important to understand.
So some things are necessary for life, but not the purpose of life.
So if you're running a race, it matters how fast you run, but you can't run without being able to breathe oxygen.
I mean, air as a whole, right?
The whole deal, right?
Now, you may say, well, the purpose of the running race is to run as fast as possible, but you can't really do it without air.
Try having a running race underwater.
Try having a running race in an airless vacuum.
It won't work, right?
People will just faint or die or whatever, right?
So there are things that are not in and of themselves valuable, but through which value is achieved.
Another example, well, I guess to take the same example, let's say that you're in a running race and you win $10,000.
You win $10,000 in the running race.
Well, $10,000 is the value, but there are other things that are needed for that value to be achieved.
You need shoes.
You need air.
You need to have had some nutrition that day.
You should have trained beforehand, I assume, unless you're running in some elderly race and you're young.
So there's a bunch of things that you need to do.
Now, if you say, well, I've got this running race.
I don't have any running shoes.
I need some running shoes, right?
And they're going to cost me $100.
And you say, well, that's weird.
I mean, why just go win the race?
It's like, well, I mean, I know that there were some runners who ran without shoes sort of way back in the day, but you need the shoes to run the race.
You can't win at a javelin tossing contest if you don't have a javelin.
So going out to buy the javelin feels like you're going in the wrong direction, but you kind of need it.
So that's just really, really important.
In order for there to be free trade, in order for there to be efficiencies, the efficiencies of the division of labor, you need to have a medium of exchange.
I remember reading this story when I was a little kid.
Lord knows where it came from.
Maybe people can dig it up.
Anyway, it was a story about the farmer wanted a loaf of bread.
And the farmer had eggs.
So he went to the baker and said, Hey, can I trade you the eggs, my eggs, and get a loaf of bread?
And the baker is like, no, I've got, I got some chicken tap back, and my wife's allergic to eggs, so I don't really want your eggs, right?
So then the farmer's like, oh, okay, all right.
Well, he says to the farmer, is there anything that you do need?
Well, you know, I could use a new pair of pants, right?
So then the farmer goes to the tailor and says, hey, if I trade you some eggs, will you make a new pair of pants?
And the tailor says, oh my gosh, for me to make a new pair of pants, it's going to be like 500 eggs, and I can't store them for that long.
So, right, so you sort of get the point, right?
So barter is crazy inefficient, especially with perishable goods, right?
Eggs go bad, or you have to spend a lot of energy, I don't know, freezing them or I don't know, whatever you do with them, right?
But eggs go bad.
Now, food goes bad.
And so if you exchange food for money, the money stays fresh.
I mean, let's not count inflation for the moment, but the money stays fresh And the food goes rotten, right?
So it allows you to retain the value of what it is that you're doing.
So capitalism, the efficiencies of the free market, require a medium of exchange, which should be reasonably valued, should be relatively objective, should be fungible, should be divisible without losing its value, right?
You cut a diamond in half, and both halves are not worth as much as the original diamond.
You cut a bar of gold in half, and both halves of the gold are worth just as much as the whole bar of gold, right?
So divisible and easily portable, light, transmissible, you know, that kind of stuff, right?
It needs a medium of exchange.
Without the medium of exchange, you can't have companies.
You can't have workers.
You can't have bosses.
You can't have investment into capital machinery.
You can't have trade.
You can't have, certainly can't have international trade, right?
Can you imagine trying to trade with someone on the other side of the world, your eggs for something, right?
It's crazy, right?
And ideally, of course, the medium of exchange, the heir to the race, the running shoes to the race, the medium of exchange should be apolitical.
It should not be controllable by politicians.
Because the moment something is controllable by politicians, it is used for political ends, i.e., to the benefit of those in power, rather than to the benefit of people in the society.
And of course, this is exactly what's happened in the West since the adoption of central banking government-controlled currencies.
And it should be limited.
It should be limited.
Everybody knows these, you know, $100 million Zimbabwe dollars, right?
You can just print it and so on, right?
Which is why, you know, in Monopoly, you can't just take a piece of paper and write $500 on it and use that, because it would make the game sort of pointless, right?
So these are things that are necessary for a medium of exchange.
Now, let's talk about Bitcoin with regards to this medium of exchange.
So you want it to be limited, and gold was limited, right?
The economy might grow by 3% a year.
Gold would generally grow by 3% a year and so on, right?
And when the value of gold went down, people would mine it less.
When the value of gold went up, people would mine it more.
So it would be relatively stable, about 3% a year.
And it can't just be wished into existence.
I mean, there's dangers to gold, right?
When the Incan and Mayan and Aztec gold flowed into France, sorry, flowed into Spain.
I don't like it.
Where did they get France from?
Flowed into Spain.
Maybe some flowed into France, but let's go with Spain first.
Well, it created terrible inflation.
People had to leave.
The intelligent people left Spain and they were literally in a recession for 400 years.
When the smart people go, it cripples an entire economy.
Most economic development is on the backs of a few smart people, mostly males.
And when they go, they take their high IQ genes with them, and things get very bad for the population that remains.
So is Bitcoin limited?
Yep.
Does Bitcoin require energy to produce just like gold?
Yep.
You pay for it in electricity and computer hardware.
Is it fungible?
Yep.
Two Satoshis is worth just as much as two individual Satoshis.
Two Bitcoin is worth just as much as one Bitcoin and one Bitcoin.
Divisible, fungible.
Is it transmissible?
Yep.
Way easier than gold.
Is it seizable?
Not easily.
I mean, I guess people can torture you, or the government can throw you in jail until you give up your keys or whatever, but it's not that.
Is it apolitical?
Yep.
Can't be controlled by politicians.
It's decentralized.
And of course, people say, oh, yes, but if there's no electricity, bro, if there's no electricity, like 80% of people or more are going to die anyway.
And you can actually do Bitcoin transactions just using paper, and then it'll be fine when the power comes back on.
They'll all process and it'll be fine.
And certainly when you have solar charged, I mean, you can run Bitcoin off a cell phone if you have to, right?
So you've got solar charged cell phones, you've got Starlink for electricity.
You're good.
You're good.
And of course, if there's no electricity, what is the value of fiat currency, right?
Because it's always the compared to what.
So people who don't say compared to what, I just, I don't take them seriously.
They're just, they don't, they're not thinking.
They're just reacting.
So if somebody says, oh, Bitcoin has no intrinsic value, it's like, neither does the government, the fiat currency, just paper.
So compared to what?
So, I mean, gold doesn't have any intrinsic value either.
I mean, all value is subjective.
I mean, how much would you pay for a glass of water when you're dying of thirst in a desert versus when you've just drank five glasses of water?
Well, infinity versus nothing.
And you say, oh, no, no, no, but Bitcoin has value because it's hard to produce.
Well, it's say that somebody achieves the ancient alchemical goal of turning lead into gold and is able to produce gold.
Or let's say some asteroid crashes with a billion tons of gold.
Or let's say that asteroid mining becomes a thing and gold gets produced.
Or let's say there's some massive mine of a sort of some thread of gold or some vein of gold that's discovered.
And so there's lots of things that can happen that cause gold to fluctuate.
So people who say, well, electronic stuff has no value.
Well, I mean, people post, I mean, people post this on Twitter saying electronic stuff has no value.
What the hell do you think Twitter is?
It's electronic stuff.
What do you think your screen is?
What do you think electronic stuff?
I mean, your keyboard is only there to turn physical stuff into electronic stuff.
So the idea that electronic stuff has no value is just funny.
If people believe that, then they wouldn't tweet, right?
If there's no value in electronic stuff, then posting a tweet is contradicting that foundationally, right?
So that doesn't make any sense.
So, yeah, it's decentralized.
It's apolitical.
It's limited.
It's hard to mine, not more than 21 million.
It's almost infinitely divisible.
And it's also self-correcting.
If there is some flaw in Bitcoin that is significant and people care about it, then they'll just update the protocols and download the new application and it will all be fixed, right?
So it's self-correcting in a way that fear currency isn't.
So, I mean, there's pluses.
Now, it's a lazy and boring intellectual dawn exercise to compare the strengths of one thing against the weaknesses of another.
That doesn't make any sense at all.
It's like saying, well, I can beat Muhammad Ali because he's bad at pickleball.
Or what?
Or he's bad at chess.
It's like, so Muhammad Ali's strength is in boxing.
Let's say my strength is in chess.
So saying, I'm better than Muhammad Ali because I'm better than Muhammad Ali at chess is a boring and pointless intellectual exercise.
It's like people who say buying is always better than renting.
It's like, no, it's not.
No, there's tons of reasons why you might want to rent rather than buy and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
So you compare the strengths of buying.
Well, you've got an asset that's going to appreciate in value versus the weaknesses of renting.
Well, you're just giving money to a landlord and getting nothing of permanent value in return, right?
I mean, that's boring.
And people who do that, I mean, they've just disqualified themselves from any intelligent analysis or they've disqualified themselves from being in the company of people with any brains at all.
If that's your, you know, I'm not saying that's you, but if that's what people's thoughts are.
Well, if I compare the weaknesses of Bitcoin with the strengths of gold, I am very smart.
If I compare the benefits of not getting married to the weaknesses of getting married, I am very smart.
Oh, man, my God.
If I compare the benefits of getting an education with the negatives of not getting an education, I am very smart.
Lots of people end up doing very well in fields where they're not educated in those fields.
In which case, the education would have been a waste.
And you might as well have, instead of getting like, you got a business degree in education, that's the best thing you can do.
Really?
So business degree in education and $100,000 in debt is way better than taking that $100,000, getting a loan, starting a business, and spending four years running it.
Yeah, that's right.
So, just people who do that, it's one-dimensional thinking.
And listen, it's not a hate-on for those people, you know, they're just not particularly smart.
And it's not their fault.
It is their fault that they think they're smart, right?
That's the problem with the midwits, right?
Dumb people usually know they're dumb.
Smart people usually know they're smart, but midwits think they're way smarter than they are.
And they need to be put in their place.
People who aren't good at things should shut up about those things because they're spreading confusion, misinformation, falsehood, and foolishness.
So, people who aren't smart need to be regularly chased out of intelligent discussions, right?
I mean, obviously, right?
People who aren't good at basketball shouldn't be playing high-level basketball.
They get chased out.
In fact, they're not even allowed in, right?
People who are bad singers should not be the lead singers in a band.
They're chased out, right?
So, keeping incompetent people away from highly competent areas is a foundational task of civilization.
So, when people say, ah, Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme, it's a Ponzi scheme.
I mean, they're just putting two things together.
Something's rising in value that I can't quite understand.
It's a Ponzi scheme.
So, a Ponzi scheme, of course, is a fraudulent investment scenario wherein you're not really investing anything, or you're not investing in anything.
What you're doing is you are taking money from newer investors and giving it to people who were earlier investors.
So, you constantly have to lie and say, Oh, I'm providing 15% return on investment because I'm so brilliant.
And you just keep getting new people and new people and new people, and you take their investments and you use it to pay 15% to the people who were already invested or not invested, but already gave you the money, right?
And eventually, of course, you run out of new people and the whole scheme collapses, but there's no value and it's all a lie.
And it's fraudulent because you say the new investors, I am getting 15%.
And it's funny, you know, just by the by the Bernie Madoff thing, like the number of people who told the government that Bernie Madoff was a fraud was certainly not zero, but government really didn't do, didn't do anything about it.
So, if people are saying, well, the reason I can pay you 15% on your money is I'm such a great investor, that's a lie.
That's fraudulent.
That is a person who is lying.
Now, Bitcoin is not a person.
Bitcoin is not AI.
Bitcoin has no moral autonomy or responsibility.
So, a Ponzi scheme is driven by a lie, that the returns are coming from investments in the market when they are in fact coming by stealing from the new members or the new quote investors in the Ponzi scheme and giving to the old investors or quote investors in the Ponzi scheme.
And it requires somebody who is actively lying to the new investors and saying the money comes from investment, not from fraudulent transfers, from theft.
So, that's a Ponzi scheme.
It requires an individual who lies.
Bitcoin is not an individual who lies.
People making a bunch of money out of something you don't understand is not a fucking Ponzi scheme.
You don't even know what a Ponzi scheme is.
A Ponzi scheme for you is just a label of wealth that's accumulating in a method you don't know or understand or can't figure out.
It's not a Ponzi scheme.
You just don't understand things.
And I say this with impatience.
I don't say it with any hostility or hatred.
You're not smart.
And that's fine.
Listen, I'm not a great singer.
I'm not great at chess.
I'm not a champion volleyball or tennis player.
There's tons of stuff I'm not great at.
But I don't confidently wade into the NBA and lecture people on basketball strategies because I don't know what basketball strategies are other than drive people slowly insane with endless floor squeaks from shoes.
I don't know.
I don't know.
So I shut up about the things that I don't know.
And that's partly because there are a few things that I'm really good at, and I won't shut up about those.
But I don't talk about things I don't understand because I'm not vain and I'm not stupid.
Now, I doubt, this is to the person who says Bitcoin's a Ponzi scheme.
I doubt that you're good at anything.
And again, this is no hate, right?
I mean, most people are average.
They're not good at anything or great at anything.
They're average, right?
So you're average.
Bitcoin requires a significant degree of economic knowledge and intelligence and computer know-how to truly understand.
And you don't have those things, so you don't understand it.
So you think it's a Ponzi scheme.
Now, you should shut up about that because you're harming people.
And the reason that you're harming people is you are warning people away from the greatest investment opportunity in human history.
I mean, Bitcoin's gone up 147% per year regularly on average since 2011.
Massively outperformed gold, stocks, bonds, treasuries, you name it.
So when you go around baubling along that Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme, then you are harming people because if you said, I don't understand the value of Bitcoin, clearly a lot of smart people do understand its value.
And clearly it's not a Ponzi scheme because a Ponzi scheme requires a person who lies and Bitcoin is not a person who lies.
Bitcoin requires theft and fraud.
A Ponzi scheme requires theft and fraud.
Bitcoin does not require theft and fraud.
There's no lying that is foundational to Bitcoin.
And Bitcoin is not tangible in the way that a rock or a tree is, although it's tangible, of course.
It is the arrangement of atoms and the arrangement of bits on a blockchain.
So it is tangible in the same way that your tweet is tangible, although you can't hold it in the way that you can hold a piece of gold.
But it certainly is tangible.
Bitcoin is secure.
Bitcoin can be anonymous.
Bitcoin can't be hacked.
And Bitcoin is apolitical.
So there's lots of positives.
So if you don't understand Bitcoin, that's fine.
There's no reason why you have to become an expert in Bitcoin, but then you should shut up about Bitcoin.
I don't understand much about chess strategies, right?
There's all these names for chess strategies.
I don't understand them.
I mean, I understand the general concept that there are particular moves and patterns in chess, but I don't really know the names.
I don't know how to apply them.
I'm just a sort of gut-level, mediocre chess player.
Oh, this seems like a good move, but I don't have, oh, I'm going to use the von Neumann defense.
I don't know that stuff.
In fact, I find it kind of depressing to even think about learning that stuff, but that's nothing negative towards chess players.
That's just not my thing.
It's not my bag, man.
Because Papa's got a brand new bag.
So, yeah, so I don't.
Chess, the von Neumann defense is ridiculous, right?
I don't say that kind of stuff because I don't like talking about things I don't understand because it's fraudulent.
Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme.
You understand that you're lying about value, just like a Ponzi scheme person would be doing.
I'm not saying you're the same as a Ponzi person, but it's a similar principle in that a Ponzi person, the Ponzi runner, is claiming to have a knowledge of investment to produce these miraculous 15% returns that he doesn't have.
And you're claiming to have a knowledge of Bitcoin that you don't have.
And you should shut up about it.
And I say this, you know, with care for your everlasting soul, so to speak.
Don't lie about things and claim to have a knowledge that you don't have.
And don't scare people away from something that could give them genuine financial security.
Please, I'm begging you, don't do it.
Because it's on your conscience if you have scared people away from something that could give them genuine financial security and protect their life savings from the predations of fiat currency.
Well, that seems quite important.
And I generally would not feel at all comfortable warning people falsely away from something that could give them real financial security because I didn't understand something.
I mean, you'll notice, I don't think ever over the, I know that never over the course of my 20-year public conversation about politics, economics, and investment, never once have I suggested that anybody buy anything.
I would never do that because I know that that is not a knowledge that I possess.
So I won't do it.
And you should also not talk about things that you don't understand as if you have something to contribute.
And I say this because deep down, you probably feel pretty bad, if you have any conscience at all, about warning people away from potential financial security and protection from predation.
And that's on you, all the people you said, oh, it's a Ponzi scheme, right?
They didn't invest and they're poorer thereby.
And that's to some degree on you.
Freedomand.com/slash event.
▲
Export Selection