Bitcoin will not go to zero: Wales’ reasoning explained
Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales has argued that Bitcoin (BTC) is unlikely to collapse to zero because its design is resilient, barring a fundamental failure in cryptography or a successful 51% attack, as reported by Forbes. His stance separates the network’s likely persistence from its long-term investment appeal, framing survival as a baseline outcome rather than a guarantee of value appreciation.
Wales further contends that Bitcoin has struggled as both a currency and a store of value over time, suggesting it could drift toward a niche role aligned with hobbyist interest rather than broad-based money use, as reported by TechStartups. In other words, his thesis allows Bitcoin to endure technically while underperforming economically if everyday utility and demand remain limited.
In this context, two technical risks are central to his reasoning. A 51% attack refers to a scenario where a coordinated entity obtains majority control of network hashing power, enabling transaction censorship or reordering that can erode confidence. A cryptography breakdown, such as a major advance that compromises Bitcoin’s signature or hashing schemes, would be a rarer, systemic threat that could undermine the chain’s integrity across all participants.
Why this matters for Bitcoin’s value and user expectations
Wales’ framing sets expectations around “survival versus success,” steering attention to how user adoption, payment utility, and perceived store-of-value characteristics could shape long-run outcomes. For readers tracking the “Jimmy Wales Bitcoin prediction” debate, including references to a so‑called “Bitcoin to $10,000 by 2050” scenario, the key point is not a single number but the pathway: persistent, functional code does not automatically translate into durable purchasing power.
Before considering counterpoints, it is useful to state his position in his own words. “People who think that bitcoin is going to zero are likely mistaken. The design is robust enough that it will continue to exist in perpetuity, barring some currently unforeseen breakdown in cryptography or a surprise 51% attack,” said Jimmy Wales, co‑founder of Wikipedia.
Analysts offer a range of perspectives that partially overlap with, and partially challenge, this view. According to Cointelegraph, Jonathan Isaac has described a fall to absolute zero as extremely unlikely absent a catastrophic fracture in collective belief, while Lyn Alden has noted that even severely impaired chains often do not vanish entirely and that stagnation, rather than extinction, can be the more plausible long-term risk via forks or niche persistence.
Institutional roadmaps also diverge. As reported by CCN, VanEck has outlined scenarios in which Bitcoin’s role could expand alongside institutional adoption and reserve use cases, implying the possibility of materially different value trajectories than a stagnation path. These frameworks place greater weight on improvements in real-world utility, regulatory clarity, and integration with traditional finance.
Macroeconomic stress can still impose material downside. As reported by The Economic Times, Bloomberg Intelligence has highlighted that severe risk‑off episodes and policy tightening cycles are among conditions that could drive deep drawdowns, even without permanently impairing the network’s existence. This underscores a distinction between price volatility and protocol viability.
For context at the time of writing, Bitcoin (BTC) is $67,326, with recent indicators showing 30‑day volatility near 9.08% (high), 11 green days in the past 30 (37%), and a 14‑day RSI around 42 (typically interpreted as neutral). Sentiment in the same snapshot is described as bearish, emphasizing how near‑term market tone can differ from long‑horizon theses about survival or stagnation.
Key takeaways at a glance
- Wales separates protocol survival from investment performance: robust design makes “zero” unlikely, but utility gaps could still limit value.
- A 51% attack and a cryptography breakdown are Wales’ core tail risks; both are low‑frequency but high‑impact threats to confidence and integrity.
- Several analysts see extinction as improbable; stagnation or niche persistence is a more commonly cited long‑term risk than outright obsolescence.
- Institutional frameworks diverge: some outline pathways tied to adoption and integration with mainstream finance, while others stress macro‑driven drawdown risk.
- Current market readings (price, volatility, RSI, and sentiment) provide backdrop, but they do not resolve the longer‑term question of adoption versus stagnation.
| Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, legal, or trading advice. Cryptocurrency markets are highly volatile and involve risk. Readers should conduct their own research and consult with a qualified professional before making any investment decisions. The publisher is not responsible for any losses incurred as a result of reliance on the information contained herein. |
