Why Crypto Fails Ordinary People

I used to think robocalls about extended car warranties were the worst phone spam. Then came the cryptocurrency “investment advisors.”

I can scroll past online ads, close pop-ups, and ignore social media noise. But when my phone rings during dinner and someone insists they can “secure your financial future with Bitcoin,” it hits differently. These weren’t random robo-dialers either. They knew my name, my contacts, and that I’d been researching cryptocurrency.

Googling ‘cryptocurrency’ landed me on marketing lists for years. In Norway, I blocked call after call, my list growing absurdly long. The harassment only stopped when I moved to Mexico.

This relentless marketing reveals something often ignored in cryptocurrency debates. Optimists see revolutionary potential. Critics point to environmental damage. But if crypto’s benefits are as obvious as advocates claim, why does it need such invasive selling? And why does mere curiosity trigger years of harassment?

The Sales Pitch Should Make You Suspicious

If crypto were truly indispensable, why the endless pressure? The space is flooded with hype: celebrity endorsements, multilevel marketing, and social media mantras like “HODL” (hold on for dear life), “diamond hands” (refusing to sell despite losses), and “number go up” (the hope that prices always rise). That’s not the language of technology adoption. It sounds more like gambling culture.

Think about it: when was the last time someone had to convince you to use email or GPS? Useful tools spread because people find them helpful, not because of aggressive campaigns promising wealth.

This hype attracts bad actors, fuels bubbles, and consistently harms ordinary people while enriching insiders. Much of what’s sold as “adoption” is just speculation wearing the mask of investment.

The Internet Analogy Is a Warning, Not a Promise

Crypto fans love to compare their industry to the early internet, suggesting that today’s flaws will fade with “iteration and regulation.” But history tells a different story.

The internet didn’t fix its early problems. It created new ones. Surveillance capitalism replaced digital freedom. A few tech giants captured huge portions of our information systems. Privacy has been systematically eroded in exchange for convenience. The digital divide still excludes many communities from full participation. Environmental costs grew rather than decreased.

And the fixes? Centralization and corporate dominance. Google and Facebook didn’t eliminate fraud; they built more sophisticated forms of manipulation and data exploitation. That’s the real precedent.

The Same Players, The Same Game

So, why expect crypto to evolve more ethically than the internet? The warning signs are already here.

Corporate capture. The same financial institutions, tech companies, and venture capital firms that dominate traditional finance are pouring billions into crypto (PitchBook, 2024; EY, 2025). Major banks like JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, and Citibank are leading blockchain investments. JPMorgan is even developing crypto custody services and crypto-backed loans (Cointelegraph, 2024). These entities did not suddenly develop altruistic motivations. They see profit opportunities.

Built-in incentives. Unlike early internet protocols, crypto systems directly reward insiders through tokenomics. Pre-mining allows developers to create tokens before public launch, giving them a significant advantage over later investors (CoinSpeaker, 2024). Research shows tokenomics often create “insider advantages” and “disproportionate benefits to large token holders” (ScienceDirect, 2020; BlockApps, 2024). This is not a side effect. It is a structural incentive for manipulation and rent-seeking.

Political capture. The crypto industry has already achieved remarkable political influence. It became the largest corporate donor in the 2024 US elections while securing crypto-friendly policies from the administration (NBC News, 2024; The Block, 2024; OpenSecrets, 2024). The revolving door between crypto companies and regulators is spinning quickly.

The surveillance shell game. Perhaps most telling is how some politicians oppose central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) on “privacy” grounds while embracing private cryptocurrencies that enable similar surveillance through blockchain analysis companies like Chainalysis (2024). The issue is not surveillance itself. It is ensuring that the profits flow to the “right” entities.

Government Control, Not Liberation

Crypto is often sold as a path to freedom. The reality points in the opposite direction.

The privacy myth. While some cryptocurrencies are technically anonymous, in practice most are easily traceable. Public ledgers, exchange records, IP data, and blockchain analysis make transactions identifiable. Chainalysis even markets its tools as “court admissible” evidence (Chainalysis, 2024).

Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs). Governments are developing systems with unprecedented control. These include the ability to freeze accounts, program expiration dates, or restrict spending (Emmer, 2024). Political opposition may be more about optics than principle.

Cash elimination. Governments are steadily phasing out cash, the one payment method that truly protects privacy. Reporting rules for cash over $10,000 are already strict (IRS, 2023; EisnerAmper, 2020). Economists such as Rogoff (2016) openly call for eliminating large bills.

Infrastructure capture. Once crypto payment systems are mainstream, replacing “decentralized” systems with government versions will be simple.

This systematic erosion of financial privacy, combined with crypto’s false promise of anonymity, creates a perfect storm. We are being sold inferior privacy protection while losing the superior alternative that actually works.

The Benefits Could Be Achieved Otherwise

The supposed benefits of crypto (to mention the most compelling: financial inclusion, cheaper remittances, and stability in volatile economies) could be achieved without speculative tokens:

• Stronger banking regulations for underserved communities
• Breaking up remittance monopolies
• International payment system reforms
• Smarter monetary policy
• And for privacy, cash already works better than crypto

These reforms are politically tough, but they don’t require gambling on an energy-intensive technology increasingly controlled by the same entities that dominate traditional finance.

The Uncomfortable Reality

So where does this leave us? The evidence paints a troubling picture that crypto advocates rarely acknowledge.

A wealth extraction machine. The current cryptocurrency ecosystem operates primarily as a mechanism for extracting wealth, disguised as financial innovation. Aggressive marketing, speculative trading, and get-rich-quick promises are not unfortunate side effects. They are core features that serve early adopters and insiders who profit when new participants buy in.

The same power players. The entities that captured the internet’s democratic promise are now embedded in crypto’s development. Major venture capital firms, financial institutions, and tech companies are shaping its trajectory. They did not suddenly develop altruistic motivations. They see opportunities to privatize benefits while socializing risks.

Designed for surveillance. Perhaps most concerning is how the technology appears to be evolving toward surveillance and control rather than liberation. Blockchain systems create permanent records of financial activity. Governments and corporations can analyze these records. The elimination of cash removes the one payment method that actually protects privacy. Political rhetoric about “freedom” then provides cover for systems that may offer even less autonomy than today.

This is not conspiracy thinking. It is pattern recognition. We saw a similar story with the internet. Early promises of decentralization and democratization gave way to concentration of power and new forms of exploitation.

The difference with crypto is that its financial incentives make the capture process faster and more profitable for those driving it.

The Real Question

So where does this leave us? If crypto does not give ordinary people real financial freedom, and the system around it is easily monitored and controlled by powerful institutions, then the issue is not theoretical. The real concern is whether anyone outside the early adopters and insiders gains meaningful benefit.

What kind of system are we building? The important question is whether crypto contributes to a fairer, more democratic, and sustainable financial order, or whether it simply accelerates the same extractive dynamics we already know.

Hype or value? Much of the industry thrives on hype, speculation, and promises of future transformation. But hype cannot be the measure of success. The real test is whether everyday users actually benefit.

Facing hard choices. If the answer continues to be “no,” then we must be honest: crypto is not delivering what it promised. At best, it is another financial product with limited utility. At worst, it risks entrenching inequality and eroding privacy further.

The conversation we need to have is simple. Not whether crypto is exciting or new, but whether it genuinely improves the financial lives of ordinary people.

References

BlockApps. (2024, December 26). Tokenomics in crypto: Exploring the risks of token buybacks. https://blockapps.net/blog/tokenomics-in-crypto-exploring-the-risks-of-token-buybacks/

Chainalysis. (2024). The blockchain data platform. https://www.chainalysis.com/

CoinSpeaker. (2024, December 7). What is pre-mining process? https://www.coinspeaker.com/guides/what-is-pre-mining-process/

Cointelegraph. (2024, August 3). Citigroup, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs lead TradFi’s blockchain charge. https://cointelegraph.com/news/citigroup-jpmorgan-goldman-lead-blockchain-investment-ripple

EisnerAmper. (2020, February 3). Federal reporting rules for cash transactions in excess of $10,000. https://www.eisneramper.com/insights/blogs/personal-wealth-advisors-blog/federal-reporting-rules-pw-blog-0220/

Emmer, T. (2024, May 23). Majority Whip Tom Emmer’s flagship legislation, the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act, passes House of Representatives. U.S. House of Representatives. https://emmer.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/majority-whip-tom-emmer-s-flagship-legislation-the-anti-cbdc-surveillance-state-act-passes-house-of-representatives

EY. (2025). How institutions are investing in digital assets. https://www.ey.com/en_us/insights/financial-services/how-institutions-are-investing-in-digital-assets

Internal Revenue Service. (2023, August). E-file Form 8300: Reporting of large cash transactions. https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/e-file-form-8300-reporting-of-large-cash-transactions

NBC News. (2024, July 27). Trump hails crypto at largest bitcoin conference. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-hails-crypto-largest-bitcoin-conference-rcna163925

OpenSecrets. (2024, July 29). Crypto Super PAC Fairshake takes top funding spot, beats MAGA. Cointelegraph. https://cointelegraph.com/news/crypto-super-pac-fairshake-top-funding-spot-beats-maga-open-secrets

PitchBook. (2024, June 6). 12 VC firms investing in blockchain and cryptocurrency. https://pitchbook.com/blog/vc-firms-investing-in-blockchain-and-cryptocurrency

Rogoff, K. S. (2016). The curse of cash: How large-denomination bills aid crime and tax evasion and constrain monetary policy. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400883219

ScienceDirect. (2020, August 22). Assets on the blockchain: An empirical study of Tokenomics. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167624520301256

The Block. (2024, July 23). Pro-crypto group Fairshake becomes largest super PAC of election cycle. https://www.theblock.co/post/306910/pro-crypto-fairshake-largest-election-cycle-super-pac

AI Transparency Statement This article was written with assistance from AI tools (ChatGPT, Claude) for drafting, editing, and research. All content has been thoroughly reviewed, edited, reworked, and verified by the author. Due to limited independent academic research on cryptocurrency, this analysis relies primarily on documented business practices, political activities, and observable industry behavior.