Crypto's Actual Role
Why Crypto Hasn't Replaced Money — But Might Replace Something Else
Bitcoin is eleven years old and still can't reliably buy you a sandwich, which tells you almost everything about what it actually is.
The Idea
The original promise of cryptocurrency was clean and radical: a decentralised currency, free from banks and governments, that anyone with an internet connection could use to transact with anyone else. What we got instead is stranger and more interesting. Crypto has not become a mainstream medium of exchange. It has become, for most of its holders, something closer to a speculative asset — a bet on future value, held rather than spent, priced in the very government currencies it was supposed to obsolete. This isn't a failure, exactly. It's a category error. The properties that make something useful as a currency — stability, predictability, wide acceptance — are almost the opposite of the properties that make something attractive to early speculators. Volatility that makes a coin exciting to hold makes it useless to price a meal with. But write off crypto entirely and you miss what it has genuinely changed. Blockchain technology introduced something that didn't exist before: the ability to establish trust between strangers without a central authority. That's not nothing. It's the reason smart contracts work, and why some financial instruments — particularly in cross-border settlement, where correspondent banking is slow and extractive — are being rebuilt on these rails. The honest picture is that crypto is not replacing money. But it may be quietly replacing certain infrastructure that money moves through — and that distinction matters enormously for understanding where it goes next.
In the World
El Salvador made Bitcoin legal tender in 2021, a genuine world-first and a bold experiment in exactly the thesis crypto advocates had been making for years. The government built a digital wallet called Chivo, offered every citizen a small incentive to sign up, and bet that a population with limited access to traditional banking would embrace decentralised currency. Three years on, the results are instructive rather than triumphant. Surveys conducted by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that the vast majority of businesses that technically accepted Bitcoin had processed zero transactions in it. Most people who downloaded the Chivo wallet did so to collect the sign-up bonus, then stopped. Inflation in the US dollar — which El Salvador also uses — was a far bigger daily concern than any crypto volatility. What the experiment revealed is that the barriers to crypto adoption aren't primarily technical. They're behavioural and structural. People don't switch payment systems out of ideological preference; they switch when a new system is dramatically more convenient or dramatically cheaper. For most Salvadorans sending remittances home, traditional transfer services — despite their fees — remained more familiar and trusted. Yet in parallel, the underlying blockchain infrastructure quietly processed billions in cross-border settlements between institutions that had no ideological stake in crypto at all. The technology found its use case. It just wasn't the one on the poster.
Why It Matters
How you frame crypto shapes every decision you might make about it — whether to hold it, ignore it, or understand its downstream effects on the financial system you already use. If you think of it as a currency, the case looks weak: it doesn't function like one in daily life, and its volatility makes it a poor store of value in the conventional sense. If you think of it as a speculative asset, the case becomes about timing and risk tolerance — which is a conversation worth having honestly, without the ideological overlay that often surrounds it. But the more interesting frame might be infrastructure. The question isn't 'will I spend Bitcoin at a café?' It's 'which parts of the financial system — clearing, settlement, identity verification, cross-border transfer — get rebuilt on distributed ledgers in the next decade, and what happens to cost and access when they do?' That's a question that affects anyone who sends money internationally, anyone whose bank relies on correspondent banking, and potentially anyone who interacts with financial services at all. The future of money isn't a single dramatic revolution. It's a long series of quiet replacements — and knowing which part of the system is actually being replaced helps you see clearly.
A Question to Ponder
If trust is the thing blockchain genuinely provides without a central authority, which institutions in your life currently exist mainly to provide that trust — and what happens to them if the technology makes them redundant?
Get a new one of these every morning.
Start learning with Thinkable