The headlines around crypto suggest that this is an accepted form of currency, and if we are not yet into it, we are getting left behind. Which had me wondering - who in my circle of non-finance aquaintantances is using it, has used it, invested in it, or traded it?
None, it turned out. But it seems to feature rather bigly in headlines, even reverberating in the appointment of persons to financial oversight committees in parliament, to the tune of a mere R4 billion, while the really big players talk idly of fortunes of $80+ billion traded daily (about R1.28 trillion, yes with a T). See here, and here. (As at 2026-09-02T22:00:00Z)
Crypto had as its sole reason for existence the return of financial power back to the average citizen. It was meant to protect Joe and Jolene Average from the cyclical demolition derby that characterises physical (traditional?) currencies.
It was supposed to be a way out of localised financial volatility, protect savings from being hollowed out by inflation, allow the unbanked to access commerce without a bank account, and enable cheap foreign remittances for workers in foreign countries. It was designed to be a decentralised alternative to corrupt, centralised financial systems.
It ‘might’ still be all of that, but crypto has been captured by Wall Street giants to an even greater extent than wealth held in traditional currencies has been captured.
Because of this capture, actually using crypto depends on where you live. In wealthy nations (and wealthy enclaves of poorer nations) where the vast majority of crypto trading takes place, it means that it is hardly used as a ‘currency’, but as a high-tech high-risk investment to shield from inflation, while mainstream banking has made use of spin-offs, like Bitcoin ETFs, to capture retail investors. Bitcoin without the bit, so to speak.
If at this point you suspect that all the hullabaloo concerns the top 1% of wealth, much like in the traditional financial system, you’d make a great sidekick for Inspector Holmes. Well, dear Mr Watson, please take a seat. In the traditional financial system, 1% of wealth-holders control 43% of all wealth. In the bitcoin world, this concentration of wealth is twice this. 1% of wealth holders control 87% of all crypto wealth. Source here.
And crypto has only been around for 18 years. Born into this world in 2008, and barely an ‘adult’ (in human life cycle analogy), the capture of this currency took place in the blink of a proverbial eye.
Why would any of this matter? I am not even sure of that yet. It might matter in the way that wealth or profits spirited away from taxable obligations, erodes the societal infrastructure that made the wealth or profits possible to begin with. It may matter in deeper, less-understood ways (to a crypto-cretin such as myself) when crypto lobbying is trying to shape the legislative support in the world’s largest economy. Lobby spending by all industries, leading up to the US mid-term elections, amounted to $ 646 million. Crypto alone accounted for $ 206 million. That’s about one third of all money spent on lobbying. The remaining two-thirds are divvied up between insignificant sectors, such as manufacturing, aerospace, pharmaceuticals, the AI sector, finance, and real estate. Mr Watson would be in agreement with inspector Holmes in deducing that we need to understand the reasons behind such an aggressive blitz of lobbying. I’d also want to know how crypto uses existing legislation as a ‘legal’ shield to avoid wealth taxation.
I’d also like to know where all this cryptic crypto is heading. It appears to me that instead of being legislated out of existence (the anonymity afforded by crypto conjured up smugglers of humans and drugs - like cash, thus), the established financial wizards discovered a cashless alternative to cash.
Were the lofty ideals that crypto was founded on, just lofty, without any foundation?
Correct me if I’m wrong - please. Crypto has weaponised technology, and a parallel financial highway has now been created. It allows the institutional owners of crypto to bypass the regulatory hassles of traditional bank accounts, while moving capital around the world at the speed of a text message.
Is this what we wanted, when crypto was conjured into existence? I suspect I already know the answers to the questions I posed above. Is the crypto we cherish vicariously (but don’t use) just another way for wealth to remain highly concentrated? Is it really just another tool to financialise the economy even further away from production? Is speculation in crypto the be-all and end-all? Where money begets more money? And when will the first thesis on the reproductive cycle of crypto see the light of day?