Loading profile…
@Justin_Bons · Unclaimed · All time · Stated horizon How it’s ranked
Founder of @CyberCapital, Europe’s Oldest Cryptocurrency Fund, full-time crypto researcher & investor since 2013. Artist. My words are not investment advice.
Coverage 5 May 2026 – 10 Nov 2026
Calls
2
1 pending · 0 unresolved
Hit rate
0.0%
0 correct / 2 incorrect · 0 neutral
ROI
-1.2%
Average return per call: what following every call with an equal stake returned
Max drawdown
−1.2%
Worst peak-to-trough of following every call, as a share of the stake
Streak
0
Right calls in a row, newest first; neutral results are skipped
Coverage
189d
5 May 2026 – 10 Nov 2026
Worst call
-1.4%“@vishal4c A situation we have to reverse as soon as we can BTC's collapse is inevitable now, so the more we prop it up, the worse it will be when it blows up Make no mistake: This cannot be avoided, as it is all in the code itself & Core refuses to fix it before it is too late”
Every token @Justin_Bons has called, most recent first. The badge is their latest call on it. 3 tokens, all time.
Last called 8 Nov 2026 · 4 calls since 20 Jun 2026
0 bullish · 4 bearish
Last called 25 Jun 2026 · 4 calls since 27 May 2026
0 bullish · 4 bearish
Last called 17 Jun 2026 · 4 calls since 25 May 2026
4 bullish · 0 bearish
By month resolved · Stated horizon
19 records · every scored call links to its source post and price evidence
| Posted (UTC) | Call | Asset | Direction | Price at post | Horizon | Price at horizon | Return | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8 Nov 2026, 21:54 | “@mika8002 That is right, tik tok tik tok, they are running out of time! Most do not realize how serious the situation is with BTC & how a lot of innocent people are going to get hurt The collapse could happen suddenly & when it inevitably does, it will be too late to exit the BTC system” |
Think your calls are better?
Get ranked on the same rules, or challenge @Justin_Bons head to head.
All time · stated
| BTC |
| ▼ Bearish |
| — |
| 30d |
| — |
| — |
| unscored |
| 8 Nov 2026, 20:58 | “At what point does BTC become a scam? BTC has a collapsing security budget, which undermines scarcity & it cannot evolve to save itself! Insiders saw the math for years & continued lying to the public anyway BTC is now a trillion-dollar meme coin sold to the next greater fool!” | BTC | ▼ Bearish | — | 30d | — | — | pending |
| 27 Oct 2026, 21:12 | “Crosslink decides whether Zcash evolves or remains a doomed meme coin like BTC! ZEC will die if it fails to adopt PoS: ZEC is insecure, slow & centralized under PoW now Help us save ZEC from the cult! As the "encrypted Bitcoin" narrative now stands in the way of progress: 🧵 If we want ZEC to become the hardest private money, then we must embrace technological progress! In ZEC's current state, that is far from being the case. On top of that, the decision-making proccess is totally centralized today! Some people want to fix this & there are others who oppose such progress. This is the story of ZEC's greatest obstacle: A conflict is brewing that will decide the fate of crypto's biggest privacy coin; beware: Evolve or Die: That is the fundamental divide this debate represents, one that has played out over BTC before. A different story of how progress lost, history does not need to repeat itself here! We now have the opportunity to do things differently, to fulfill Satoshi's vision for a true cypherpunk P2P Cash. Instead of merely pretending on a network that cannot possibly make that dream a reality If we want ZEC to be the best possible version of itself, then ofcourse it should adopt the best technologies! Especially when they represent leaps & bounds in genuine progress without any significant trade-offs! To oppose such clear & objective improvements does not strike me as entirely rational; there is a degree of religiosity involved, much as is the case around BTC too The Bitcoin Cult: Most Bitcoiners believe that BTC is the most secure, decentralized & economically sound network When that, in reality, is incredibly far from the truth, by several orders of magnitude now! BTC's security is collapsing (already much lower cost to attack than all major PoS chains today) This will lead to increasing the inflation rate beyond the "sacred" 21M limit; that will lead to forks & even a potential death spiral with a "bank run" & all. It is an absolute disaster & the crisis will hit within a decade Look, we covered this extensively elsewhere & it is 2026; ask Grok to pull up some of my other articles on this if you want to know more. This can all be proven without a shadow of doubt. That is not the point of this article My point is that BTC is some kind of mass delusion, of the type we have seen before in the 2008 housing crisis, the dot-com bubble & even the Tulip bubble! It has happened before & it is happening again with BTC today So it is no wonder that some of that religiosity/mentality "infects" the communities of other chains, such as ZEC. Especially considering that it now has this "encrypted bitcoin" narrative going for it, or, as I argue, against it BTC's current "success" as a purely speculative meme coin has done incredible harm to our industry by inspiring other projects to follow a similar path, not realizing that it is, in fact, a dead end Its temporary "success" as a meme coin only predicts more future harm as it inevitably comes crashing down. Unfortunately for ZEC, it shares the exact same design & therefore inherits all of these same fatal flaws Conflicts of Interest: Many of the major detractors of Crosslink have conflicts of interest, such as large ownership stakes in ZEC mining companies, which would directly benefit from continuing to bleed ZEC dry today Miners also have notoriously strong short- to medium-term incentives, with barely any long-term incentives! In this case, miners are also directly incentivized to oppose any switch to PoS! I should also disclose my conflicts of interest for fairness. The fund I founded, own & help manage is also invested in ZEC, the token. I would call that aligned! Unlike miners, I am nonetheless under a fiduciary duty to report that! Who Decides: The truth is ugly, as ZEC is currently under effective centralized control. While the detractors of Crosslink mostly support that form of governance, as it mirrors the monolithic position of the Bitcoin cult My position is that the only fair way to decide this would be through a stakeholder vote. However, the infrastructure, culture & incentives are not in place, making it unlikely to succeed at scale. That makes this all a serious governance dilemma Ideally, the owners of the chain should decide ZEC's fate & should always be able to (stakeholders). Putting that on miners has never worked before in the past & putting that responsibility on a development team is a recipe for disaster: Power Corrupts: Power corrupts & absolute power corrupts absolutely. @zooko has done enough for this industry for us to expect him to start playing politics now. Make no mistake, this is old-school ugly real-world politics Exactly because there is no decentralized dispute mechanism. That is why we need decentralized decision-making processes & this can only be achieved through stakeholder governance. At least to the extent it is possible to do justice to the underlying decentralization of the chain Chicken & Egg Problem: However, it might also be a chicken-and-egg problem, because without PoS incentives, the outcome of such a vote might be seen as illegitimate if it does not garner sufficient participation So, the centralized controllers of ZEC might just have to use their very real authoritarian powers to push ZEC one last time over the finish line before they can relinquish their own centralized control, swapping it for "soft power" instead. It would at least be the best possible poetic final act from that position of control That is also why a hybrid approach might make more sense politically/diplomaticaly even if it does not make any sense technically Good Governance: The goal should be to avoid a split, even when it starts to look increasingly inevitable That is what happens when there is no formalized dispute mechanism like stakeholder voting; when the disagreement is big enough, it leads to a split. Unlike stakeholder governance. There is a reason for that: In a democracy, there is no civil war after every vote, because people agree with the decision-making process even if they do not agree with the outcome. This is still a good analogy, despite the fact that an equity is closer to how crypto governance should work in general The real problem here is governance, as it also was for Bitcoin's "block size" debates. Ultimately, that will determine the outcome of this entire debate Crosslink: In my view, Crosslink does not go far enough. Hybrid consensus is not worth it, as it inherits the cons of both systems. It is an improvement over pure PoW, sure. But it is still nowhere near as effective as a pure PoS design That is why I would rather see a full switch to PoS, while giving the mining industry several years' notice to phase out their operations responsibly But as I mentioned earlier, my technical ideal can be superseded by the political realities, no matter how frustrated that might make me. At least it also exposes the costs of having bad governance This debate is about radically different visions for blockchain colliding with each other This is not about Crosslink's implementation details at all. As we are debating some of the greatest & most critical ideological divides crypto has ever had to tackle Conclusion: Whatever decision ZEC's centralized governance makes, it will make some factions & groups of people very upset; there is no other way around this Will this lead to a "ZEC classic"? Maybe; it all depends on how everyone plays their cards. Also, which side even gets to keep the original name is a totally arbitrary & dirty political game! So, I advocate for just doing the right thing. Do what is truly best for ZEC, not just what the fantasy narrative dictates. Go full PoS, transition using hybrid if needed. That is where Crosslink is a decent plan After that, there can be several years of preparing the community, culture & incentives for the full switch to PoS. Along with the switch to full stakeholder governance! That would be my dream for ZEC. Unlocking the decision-making processes that will also enable it to improve in other ways in the future. As my wish list is very large & ZEC can do very little in comparison today This is a story of conservatism & orthodoxy against progressivism. This time, the truth seekers (progressives) are on the right side of history: ZEC must evolve, or it will most surely die Fortunately, we have a decent chance of pulling it off this time. So, for what it is worth, throw your hat into the race. Start by helping to spread this message far & wide! If ZEC manages to walk through this door & embrace progress & truth. Then ZEC most certainly deserves a place in the hallowed halls of the future of finance & money! 🔥” | BTC | ▼ Bearish | — | 30d | — | — | unscored |
| 19 Sept 2026, 10:07 | “@vishal4c A situation we have to reverse as soon as we can BTC's collapse is inevitable now, so the more we prop it up, the worse it will be when it blows up Make no mistake: This cannot be avoided, as it is all in the code itself & Core refuses to fix it before it is too late” | BTC | ▼ Bearish | $81,190 | 30d | $82,331 | +1.4% | incorrect |
| 31 Aug 2026, 17:43 | “@Zeras_24 It is absolutely true, given we can back this up with math & the open-source code of BTC itself Please go ahead & verify everything I say here independently I know how wild this sounds, but it is the truth. We must warn more people before it is too late https://t.co/nXN7mijjax” | BTC | ▼ Bearish | — | 30d | — | — | unscored |
| 31 Aug 2026, 17:39 | “@kryptodroid1 Crash, most likely locking BTC into a death spiral Keep in mind, Core will raise the limit in response to the network coming under attack As the security budget will have dropped so low We can then expect several splits as the community fights itself over which side to follow” | BTC | ▼ Bearish | — | 30d | — | — | unscored |
| 26 Aug 2026, 17:25 | “@mattman @SallyMayweather @blockblanc @Vladcostea @TheDesertLynx @AaronRDay @ameensol True & it is more priced in then many sometimes realize BTC & ETH are number 1 & 2, because other people believe in decentralization & privacy That is the best evidence of the demand, despite those chains failing to live up to expectations That is the opportunity of a lifetime” | BTC | ▲ Bullish | — | 30d | — | — | unscored |
| 21 Aug 2026, 16:22 | “BTC is not special; it is just bad Stop treating it like a snowflake! The religiosity is only there to defend the indefensible There are no redeeming qualities; BTC is not secure, decentralized, or scarce in the long run! BTC's inevitable collapse will hurt countless people 🧵 Putting BTC into its own unique category is a mistake. As it bypasses comparative analysis & in some cases even critical thinking That is why in BTC land strange & weird rhetoric leads the day, dominating the narrative, as there is nothing of substance to hold on to Bitcoin's main message is appealing & worthy of our support. The problem is that BTC cannot achieve any of the things its proponents ultimately claim to want That turns bitcoiners into "phony revolutionaries", who are unable to achieve anything. Much like a "controlled opposition" in politics. Despite these individuals often having the most admirable goals & characters The security budget is collapsing, as a consequence of the blocksize limit. We have covered the details of this collapse extensively in previous posts, from the mechanisms & the politics for change, to the supporting math & economic theory. Instead of repeating myself here, let me remind you that you are only a single Grok prompt away from finding those threads again We are gradually getting through to the wider public; that is why the collapse will likely come before the mathematically predicted 6-to 10-year timeline. With so many parties now aware, they will likely move out before a death spiral begins. So holding BTC in the meantime becomes a very risky game of musical chairs For the analysts out there, I challenge you to put BTC into the same category as other crypto's. You will find that it completely collapses under scrutiny when it comes to basically all of the major fundamental metrics The fact that people still speak so highly of BTC speaks to the mass collective delusion taking place here. Not dissimilar to the 2008 subprime mortgages, the 2000s dot-com bubble, the stock market collapse of 1929 or even the Tulip Bulb mania of 1637 There is no shortage of historical examples where human beings seemingly lose their minds & markets go berserk, often with catastrophic consequences That is exactly what is happening here. The cryptocurrency revolution is real; BTC is not We have been raising this alarm for over a decade; we now have less than a decade left. We have a duty as crypto advocates to warn as many people as we can about the looming collapse, or we also become morally complicit in all of the pain it will inevitably cause That is what it means to be a true bitcoiner today. To warn people that BTC no longer carries that torch forward while advocating for the alternatives that can So, if you also care about the original vision of "P2P Electronic Cash", then help us spread this message far & wide. In support of the Bitcoin dream, not against it! ❤️” | BTC | ▼ Bearish | — | 30d | — | — | unscored |
| 16 Aug 2026, 18:47 | “@crypto_centrl Its supply is, in reality, not limited. Without fees to pay for the security budget, it will collapse within a decade Even if that were not the case, a limited supply alone does not make a good SoV The other side of the equation is demand, without demand scarcity is meaningless” | BTC | ▼ Bearish | — | 30d | — | — | unscored |
| 11 Aug 2026, 18:23 | “@therealchaseeb @pokerchessman @grok Bitcoin is doomed! There you go, irrefutable proof!” | BTC | ▼ Bearish | — | 30d | — | — | unscored |
| 30 Jul 2026, 17:14 | “BTC should not be taken seriously as an investment As it is an emperor wearing no clothes, without utility or long-term security Making it a purely speculative asset, contrary to the original goals of the project Here are fourteen reasons why you should not invest in BTC: 🧵 1. No Capacity (Utility) The block size limit limits BTC's throughput to 7 Transaction Per Second, which means it would take more than forty years for everyone in the world to do a single transaction. This means that widespread & significant usage of BTC is impossible from a technical perspective, as usage has literally been capped. Therefore, it cannot & will not ever be the “future of money”. That also means mass self-custody is impossible over BTC, as the capacity is not there to support it; it only works now as nobody is using it. Congestion also renders transacting over BTC unreliable, as it is impossible to predict fees perfectly, leading to failed transactions. Some have proposed the Lightning Network as a solution to this problem. However, onboarding people to the Lightning Network in a non-custodial manner requires several on-chain transactions, while high fees are also passed on to LN users during times of congestion. That makes LN a non-solution. The block size limit, therefore, destroys all potential use cases for BTC, as any significant amount of usage is literally impossible. Whenever a real use case does take off, it only leads to fee spikes and congestion, which eventually drives people away; this is why BTC has no utility & therefore no usage. 2. No Long-Term Security (Without Utility) BTC’s security model is currently in a bootstrapping phase, where the security budget is supported by high inflation. However, we are now approaching the next phase, where fees are supposed to take over from inflation due to the halvening mechanism. BTC was originally designed to be a high-volume payment network where a large number of TXs, each paying a small fee, would be able to pay for the security of the network based on this utility/service. However, because BTC fundamentally changed its roadmap, goals & vision by refusing to increase the block size limit as was originally planned, it now faces a different dilemma. A total failure of its security model due to an inability to pay for its own security! There are now only two ways in which BTC can remain secure while keeping the same inflation schedule; both are exceedingly unrealistic: BTC has to double in value every four years for the next century or sustain extremely high fees just to maintain the current level of security. This price doubling would have to continue for another 80 years after that until the security budget runs out completely. If you understand exponentials & economics, you should know that this is entirely impossible. Fees will also never reach sustained extremes due to the ratcheting effect of the fee market. Paying hundreds of dollars for a single transaction is not realistic in a competitive market. When fees spike, users leave, all due to the unnecessary addition of the block size limit! This all means that BTC’s long-term security is unsustainable; without extremely high TX fees, the security of BTC will inevitably continue to decrease until it drops so low that the network becomes profitable to attack, rendering BTC insecure. This will happen within a decade (two to three halvenings). BTC’s security & technical foundation are made out of sand; false hope. 3. No Scarcity (Without Security) There is a third, more realistic option to avoid this catastrophe in the absence of increasing the block size limit before it is too late. Increasing BTC’s inflation rate beyond the 21M limit will be the only option left once BTC’s security drops below a certain threshold. Because once we reach this inevitable state, there will only be two choices left: Option one is allowing censorship & double spending to occur as the network gets 51% attacked. Option two is to increase BTC’s supply inflation beyond the 21M limit. I suspect once the crisis hits within a decade, both will occur simultaneously, splitting the network again and causing even more chaos, all as a consequence of rejecting utility and the original vision for Bitcoin during the block-size debates. 4. No Value Proposition (Without Security, Utility & Scarcity) An insecure & purely speculative asset cannot serve as a good Store of Value at all. The best Store of Value is one with a foundation in utility, as that creates a stable floor that supports the speculation. Furthermore, the impending failure of its long-term security model completely destroys all narratives used to justify BTC as an investment in the absence of utility, as BTC's scarcity will soon be exposed for being an illusion The reality is that BTC is unable to provide any value whatsoever beyond mere speculation. That is what turns it into a purely speculative asset, making it highly volatile & ultimately pointless. BTC, in other words, has become the ultimate meme coin. The times have changed & the technology has evolved to the point where BTC’s token economics now look incredibly weak compared to the competition. 5. No Turing Completeness (Programmability) Programmability has proven itself to be a critical feature for any new blockchain, as it has enabled a wide range of now-proven new use cases. It also makes sense that the best-decentralized money needs decentralized finance to support it. Otherwise, everyone would still be reliant on custodial services to enable these more complex financial products, defeating the point of using a decentralized cryptocurrency to begin with. That is why BTC users cannot natively use DEX's like most other chains can That is also why there are orders of magnitude more wrapped BTC on competing networks compared to the Lightning Network right now Programmability is a necessity for long-term competitiveness, as it provides a far more compelling stepping stone to attracting new users, compared to only having a purely speculative SoV narrative 6. No DeFi (Without Programmability) The lack of programmability explains why BTC cannot support DeFi. Consequently, countless bitcoiners keep losing money on centralized exchanges & fraudulent centralized lending platforms as a consequence of that limitation. This will continue indefinitely, as BTC is incapable of developing its own DeFi, requiring trust in centralized institutions from its users instead, which is all very much contrary to Bitcoin's original thesis. This extreme lack of functionality also further affects BTC’s capability to compete in terms of security & economics, as utility remains the key to sustainable & highly attractive token economics. Something that BTC is just not capable of at any significant scale at all. 7. No Privacy (Without Capacity & Programmability) The block-size limit also massively reduces the anonymity set, as it is much easier to conduct chain analysis when there are far fewer transactions. Mixers are also rendered far less usable due to this lack of capacity & also far more expensive during periods of congestion; again, privacy is totally unviable at scale. There is also a complete lack of significant privacy-enhancing technologies, largely due to the lack of programmability over BTC. Otherwise, solutions such as zero-knowledge proofs could have been implemented, making BTC far more private for users who desire such capabilities. Any native implementation of privacy features still remains far-fetched, considering the state of BTC governance, which we will cover later. Privacy is a critical feature of any financial or payment system. The fact that BTC is unable to implement robust privacy features is what also makes it unsuitable to be adopted as money or an SoV, even if it had the capacity. 8. PoW is inefficient & wasteful compared to PoS Proof of Work carries with it a massive cost in arbitrary computation, almost completely absent when compared to Proof of Stake. This cost has to be reflected in either fees or inflation to pay for its long-term security. PoW externalizes the cost of validation by requiring a massive amount of hardware and electricity to secure the network, all to solve arbitrary mathematical equations that do not directly benefit the network itself. PoS, on the other hand, leverages the value of the token itself to secure the network, resulting in a far more efficient means to gain high blockchain security PoS is economically superior since, without this massive arbitrary computation cost, its token economics can have far lower fees and/or inflation in all variations of the design due to this increase in efficiency. In terms of the “cost to attack,” comparing PoS to PoW assuming similar attributes besides the consensus algorithm, PoS is 20x to 50x more expensive to attack compared to PoW. Because PoS costs are much lower, as pointed out above, it means that if all else is equal: PoS is far more secure and far more sound based on economic considerations alone. 9. PoW is less decentralized compared to PoS PoW requires warehouses full of hardware that can be seen from space. Centralized by economies of scale & requiring special deals with governments for electric contracts, PoW is reserved for industrialists. Whereas PoS block production can be run on Raspberry PI’s from ordinary people’s homes, and rewards are equally distributed based on stake instead of industrial-scale competition. Lowering the barrier for entry & thereby widening the distribution of power (decentralization). Most PoS cryptocurrencies operating at the scale of BTC would be far more decentralized by several orders of magnitude. PoW does not stand a chance; PoS is the evolution. This all makes PoS superior to PoW in every meaningful way, from the standpoint of economics, security, decentralization, and even according to broadly agreed principles of fairness and equality. 10. Dysfunctional governance My original 2013 thesis for investing in BTC was destroyed by the very people we trusted to maintain it. There also lay the problem. I believe in the end, what we witnessed was a failure of governance. BTC’s history of power struggles & civil wars is a symptom of this failure. The truth is that the dominant client implementation, “Bitcoin Core,” has effectively achieved centralized control over BTC development. Turning BTC into a one-party system, with Core as an effective gatekeeper of all change. There is literally only one lead maintainer who has the final say over all decisions in Core, making it a dictatorship. Like all dictatorships, there are limits to what they can get away with. However, this is still a total perversion of the very idea of decentralization that BTC was supposed to represent. This is all, another consequence of the block-size debates, explaining why truly competing clients are today seen as “enemies of Bitcoin”. The myth of BTC; is that it is a decentralized meritocracy. This could not be further from the truth; Bitcoin Core has disproportionate power to make any changes to the protocol, including highly controversial ones like RBF, while simply kicking out anyone who disagrees with them, such as Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn, and Jeff Garzik. This is why a diversity of competing client implementations is so essential for true decentralization. BTC has lost its client diversity as a consequence of the block-size debates, which means it has effectively been captured, a clear failure of decentralized governance. 11. Toxic culture From Bitcoin maximalists to laser eyes, BTC is notorious for its toxic & closed-minded culture. This is important to understand in light of the lack of any formalized governance, which leaves Core as a de facto dictator of the protocol. That all means that the only hope for reform lies in the culture, or in other words, the social layer. Unfortunately, this social layer is highly dysfunctional today; again, this is partially a consequence of the previous points, as these flaws cause a deep unconscious feeling of insecurity. As BTC’s culture is a by-product of its history & anthropological evolution. Most notable in this evolution is the time period of the blocksize debates, which was accompanied by mass censorship campaigns. Leading to the exodus of almost all of the dissenting voices. Creating an echo chamber with a self-reinforcing selection bias for the leading personalities, reinforcing the homogenous demographics of BTC even more. Toxicity, closed-mindedness & hostility are their defense mechanism for defending what are fatal flaws in BTCs design. That is the cause of their insecurity, which demands fictitious narratives from its supporters, as falsehoods, fantasy & wishful thinking are the only ways to keep selling BTC to the greater fool, even resorting to tactics taken directly from the Ponzi playbook. The dominant personality type is now the polar opposite of when I first joined in 2013. The same collective psychological spirit that I fell in love with now thrives in BTC’s competitors instead. While bitcoiners keep selfishly pretending as if BTC still supports its original lofty goals when it clearly does not. 12. Conflicts of interest The majority of prominent BTC developers are financially supported by for-profit companies whose aim is to develop L2 solutions for BTC. This creates a clear conflict of interest against scaling BTC’s L1. Prominent members of Bitcoin Core received a lot of money & equity from companies building L2 solutions such as the Lightning Network & Liquid. Companies such as Blockstream & Chaincode Labs have been funding Core developers for many years now. The conflict arises from the fact that these companies benefit from not scaling BTC’s L1. At least in the mid-term, these companies were able to raise hundreds of millions of dollars by selling a solution (L2) to a problem they have created and are able to maintain (L1 scaling). We have to look at a system’s incentive mechanisms as a whole instead of looking at individuals, since we can predict outcomes of large groups of people based on incentives, unlike the behavior of individuals. That means over a sufficiently large period of time and scale. This particular misalignment of incentives will cause these conflicts of interest to occur again and again. Making this a major systemic flaw in blockchain governance, something I have covered more extensively in my “Theory On Bitcoin Governance; Three-Stage Model” 13. Entrenched & Complicit Leadership Power, on average, always corrupts & we should not expect those in power to go against their own interests and surrender their position. As this only occurs in the rarest of cases throughout history. The leadership responsible for these failures & departures from the original goals is effectively still in power today. From this perspective, BTC remains effectively captured by parties with direct conflicts of interest. The need to overthrow the current BTC leadership represents a massive barrier to positive change, one that is unlikely to be overcome any time soon. Especially considering the lack of any formalized governance & cult-like following of the incumbents. 14. Inability to solve all of these problems BTC is unable to change in order to solve all of these problems, in large part, due to its dysfunctional governance & toxic culture. BTC’s governance has been ruined by the denial of its existence: “The greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing the world that he did not exist” Supporting BTC based on the potential for change cannot be divorced from politics; any sufficiently deep investigation will expose its flaws & highlight its inability to change, even when confronted with the type of major existential threats to its existence I outlined earlier. BTC is on a train heading directly into the brick wall of its own technical limitations; bitcoiners' hopes & dreams do not alter that inalienable fact. Conclusion From a fundamental perspective, BTC is one of the worst cryptocurrency assets on the market today. Its only real benefit is its first-mover advantage, still putting it at the number one spot in market capitalization. However, once it inevitably loses this dominant position, there will not be anything left to justify its prominence. Allowing everyone to see BTC for the failed experiment that it really is. A beautiful experiment that has brought about a Cambrian explosion of innovation, ensuring that Bitcoin's original vision does succeed. You can project any beliefs you want onto BTC, but that does not change the technical facts of its inferiority, setting it up for an inevitable downfall. You can speculate on it, you can trade it, you can even set up a quasi-religious belief system around it. However, the one thing you cannot do is build a coherent, fundamentally based long-term investment case around it without ignoring the competitive landscape of the wider cryptocurrency market BTC is on borrowed time, hand-waving away its deeply flawed design. Failing to move with the times & ideologically entrenched in outdated technology, BTC is not exempt from free market competition. The Bitcoin dream now thrives in its children instead; while BTC is left behind, relegated in future history books for founding this movement, but not continuing it. A spectacular and necessary failure, I am sure future generations will look back at 2023 and wonder how the majority of people could have been so wrong. The same is also true when we look into our past; it might seem obvious with hindsight, but for those ingrained in the culture of their time, the opposite can be true. Ultimately, all monetary value is based on belief; however, there is a reason why the vast majority of the world's value is tied up into assets with utility. Because value investors like myself believe that utility is far more valuable than speculation alone can ever be. That is why we have not been invested in BTC since 2017 and have never regretted this choice. So, if you believe in Bitcoin's original vision, support the alternatives instead. Help us spread this message far & wide. For the sake of the very cypherpunk vision BTC purports to stand for. BTC is only a hollow shell of what it once was. This mismatch in reality means the opportunity today is greater than ever. Bitcoin remains a beautiful lesson, enshrined in our history so it will never be forgotten. Thank you, Satoshi Nakamoto, for the beautiful gift you gave us: We will continue to honor your legacy by leaving BTC behind for alternative chains that do justice to Bitcoin's original cypherpunk vision for humanity! ❤️” | BTC | ▼ Bearish | — | 30d | — | — | unscored |
| 23 Jun 2026, 16:22 | “@TheDesertLynx That seems like a fair assessment I also do not think it will take the full 6-10 years before this fact-based doom narrative takes over Big parties are 100% going to front-run this, as millions of people have seen this critique at this stage BTC is now a dangerous meme coin” | BTC | ▼ Bearish | — | 30d | — | — | unscored |
| 20 Jun 2026, 10:59 | “@Adv_Elite94 BTC is a ticket to disaster, loss, tyranny, & definitly not freedom or wealth The network will collapse within 6 to 10 years, this is certain based on the code & math The crisis will happen before that, as many will try to frontrun it You cannot say we did warn you of the risk” | BTC | ▼ Bearish | — | 30d | — | — | unscored |
| 20 Jun 2026, 10:51 | “@schoowoo The 21M limit is part of what is supposed to make BTC valuable When that goes away, the price will collapse, as it is a meme coin without a foundation in utility The story collapses when the masses realize that it was all based on lies Futures only increase that volatility!” | BTC | ▼ Bearish | $63,610 | 30d | $64,239 | +1.0% | incorrect |
| 20 Jun 2026, 10:34 | “@Blipege This has been the case since 2017 The market can remain irrational for longer than such a position can stay solvent My fund invests in the alternatives instead, as that represents a massive opportunity As eventually the alts will have to overtake BTC in market capitalization!” | BTC | ▲ Bullish | — | 30d | — | — | unscored |
