Bitcoin faces a new survival threat, one that does not come from Washington, Beijing, or supercomputers, but rather from generations of indifference.

Written by: Christina Comben

Translated by: Saoirse, Foresight News

At its inception, Bitcoin was merely an inconspicuous "niche thing." It was neither an innovative product of Silicon Valley nor the result of meetings among central banks. Instead, Bitcoin emerged in the wake of the global financial crisis, at just the right moment, carrying profound disruptive potential.

The mysterious figure Satoshi Nakamoto published a white paper on the cypherpunk mailing list, proposing the creation of a peer-to-peer payment network that could bypass the operational mechanisms with vulnerabilities in the financial system post-2008.

At that time, Bitcoin was an "antagonistic currency," a tool for direct resistance against bailouts, bank failures, and central planning. Early holders saw themselves as "digital rebels," building infrastructure for a brand new "free currency" — one that was censorship-resistant, borderless, and not bound by the whims of officials or the failures of outdated institutions. On January 17, 2009, Satoshi Nakamoto posted:

"Perhaps it’s better to buy some Bitcoin, just in case it really takes off. If enough people think this way, it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy."

From "Rebellious Vanguard" to "Institutional Darling"

In 15 years, Bitcoin has evolved from an obscure technical white paper into a global currency network valued at over $20 trillion. The once elusive "regulatory approval" has finally seen the light of day: initially cautious probing by regulators has turned into official recognition that dominates the headlines. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant remarked on the anniversary of Bitcoin's birth:

"Seventeen years after the white paper was published, the Bitcoin network is still operating steadily, and its resilience is stronger than ever. Bitcoin will never 'go down.'"

From the listing of spot ETFs, Wall Street pouring billions into it, to the U.S. government passing relevant legislation and publicly traded companies incorporating Bitcoin into their balance sheets — each milestone achieved signifies that this "first-generation rebel" seems to have conquered peak after peak.

However, with "legitimacy" comes a more insidious and slowly fermenting threat: "relevance." The vitality of a technology that can shake the world entirely depends on whether the "narrative" it carries resonates. The younger generation, evidently, is not buying into Bitcoin's narrative.

Mountains of "Death Notices" for Bitcoin

Writing "death notices" for Bitcoin has long become a tedious routine (one might even say an "industry"). Whether it’s the ambiguity of early code, the catastrophic hacking of Mt. Gox, China's mining ban, regulatory crackdowns, or the potential threats posed by quantum computing, headlines proclaiming "Bitcoin is dead" have exceeded 450 to date.

"Warren Buffett, the 'Oracle of Omaha,' once called Bitcoin 'worse than rat poison'; JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon mocked:

"I have always been completely opposed to cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin, and the like. Their only real use is to facilitate money laundering and tax evasion for criminals and drug dealers… If I were the government, I would ban it outright."

Yet, each crisis seems to reinforce Bitcoin's "immunity." Whether facing regulatory panic, security incidents, or bear market winters, the Bitcoin network continues to operate, blocks keep being generated, and a new narrative emerges: Bitcoin is "unstoppable."

This belief has permeated various levels, with even Russian President Vladimir Putin publicly stating:

"Bitcoin, who can ban it? No one can. Who can ban the use of other electronic payment tools? No one can either — because these are all new technologies."

In fact, for the millennial generation of the digital age, Bitcoin has long become the "spiritual successor" to gold: it is resilient, and (if "survival" can be considered an advantage) it is almost "immortal."

But as Jameson Lopp, Chief Security Officer of cryptocurrency security firm Casa and Bitcoin security expert, previously told CryptoSlate: the biggest threat Bitcoin faces is not technological breakthroughs or regulatory battles. By 2025, the real threat is "indifference" — too few young people are willing to pay attention to it.

Generation Z: No Money, No Bitcoin

Generation Z (Zoomers) is the generation born alongside the iPhone and Instagram, growing up watching YouTube and TikTok. They entered adulthood in the weary atmosphere of "late capitalism," rewriting the rules of the economy.

Ordinary Z graduates face stagnating wages, hopelessness in home buying, the disappearance of entry-level jobs, and soaring credit card debt. When the boundaries of "the future" only extend to the next paycheck, why bother saving value for tomorrow? As Sean Ristau, Vice President of Digital Assets at InvestiFi, told CryptoSlate:

"Bitcoin was initially a direct challenge to the financial system, a form of protest. Now it feels more like 'digital gold,' primarily controlled by giants and banks. This image simply does not resonate with young people who are dealing with inflation, debt, and rising living costs."

No matter how "strong" Bitcoin appears in the market, many in Generation Z perceive it as carrying a suspicious "baby boomer vibe." The earliest supporters of Bitcoin bear the "battle scars" of the 2008 financial crisis, while Generation Z is familiar only with meme stocks, Robinhood options trading, and tokens like Dogecoin.

Jeff Park, Chief Information Officer of ProCap BTC and Bitwise advisor, warns that Bitcoin's narrative must change. He believes Generation Z seeks "meaning," not an anti-inflation tool:

"Ultimately, if young people do not embrace Bitcoin, the entire logic of Bitcoin will collapse."

In a recent episode of the "Story of Bitcoin" podcast, cryptocurrency advocate American HODL also acknowledged:

"The lack of interest in Bitcoin among Generation Z is a big problem — because they are too 'nihilistic.' We must continuously reach out to them, trying to awaken them, telling them: 'Bro, for your own good and for self-preservation, act now while you still can!' Both reasons are crucial."

Political Context: The "Bitcoin Holding War" Between Red and Blue

The partisan divide surrounding Bitcoin has never been sharper. As the Biden administration intensifies "Choke Point 2.0" against cryptocurrency businesses, the Democratic stance has become "cryptocurrency is harmful, regulation is essential."

In contrast, MAGA-aligned Republicans, core libertarians, and some moderate centrists now view support for Bitcoin as a way to "demonstrate fiscal independence and national revival."

(Note: MAGA stands for "Make America Great Again," a slogan originally proposed by former U.S. President Donald Trump during his 2016 presidential campaign, which later became a hallmark of his supporter base, related political movements, and conservative ideology.)

However, Generation Z is completely uninterested in this. They flock to online communities where "unity is above speculation." The political narrative of Bitcoin, originally about "freedom from government control," now has to contend with escalating economic anxiety — and widespread distrust of the U.S. government and all institutions. Park warns:

"There is a reason left-wing candidates do not support Bitcoin in elections — not because they fear the 'establishment,' but because they believe supporting Bitcoin would harm their interests. This is definitely a bad thing. For Bitcoin to succeed, it must become a common platform for 'Bitcoin and Mandani (leftist politicians),' rather than an exclusive tool for 'Bitcoin and Ackman (right-wing capitalists).'"

As Trump and more Republicans tout Bitcoin as "patriotic technology," left-leaning Generation Z turns to socialist leaders like Zolan Mandani. In their eyes, Bitcoin has become a "side gig for libertarians" (or worse), part of the "conservative establishment." From any angle, it is no longer the "rebel" that understands street culture.

Why Can't Bitcoin's Ideals Move Young People?

Bitcoin's original core claims — "freedom from bank control, anti-inflation savings, and non-seizable digital assets" — hardly ignite enthusiasm among young people. For them, money does not feel like a "fortress to be guarded," but rather like "points in an infinite game": always circulating, always changing. As Jamie Elkaleh, Chief Marketing Officer of Bitget Wallet, told CryptoSlate:

"The investment culture of Generation Z is faster-paced, more social, and more reliant on meme dissemination. They are more inclined towards community-driven tokens, AI-related assets, and creator economies — because these things give them a sense of 'participation' and align with their digital behavior. Young users often view Bitcoin as 'assets for funds and treasuries,' rather than 'a platform they can directly participate in'… While the narrative of Bitcoin as 'digital gold' can provide a sense of security and honor, it lacks 'interactivity' and 'goal-driven vitality' — both of which are core demands for this generation's engagement in financial activities."

Ristau adds:

"The cryptocurrency ownership rate is rising rapidly (over half of Generation Z has held digital assets), but Bitcoin's audience still skews older, wealthier, and predominantly male. Young users are chasing something entirely different: meme coins with clear goals, AI-related tokens, and fun, practical, or community-driven social or gaming projects. So, where exactly is the problem?"

Is it a "demographic problem" or a "demographic opportunity"?

Is it any wonder that young people under 25 are increasingly disillusioned with the world and their own circumstances? High inflation, blocked wealth accumulation channels, and complete distrust in the institutions their parents relied on — these are the realities they face.

Ironically, this predicament may spur the next wave of Bitcoin adoption. Grant Cardone, CEO of Cardone Capital, told CryptoSlate:

"There is no 'youth dilemma' with Bitcoin. The real issue is not the age of the holders, but the mindset. Someone tells Generation Z 'to trade meme coins, not to accumulate wealth,' so they chase quick money instead of long-term assets that can be passed down. Bitcoin is designed for 'long-term thinkers' — those who understand that 'control, scarcity, and freedom' are the foundations of wealth."

From this perspective, Bitcoin's so-called "demographic problem" resembles more of a "demographic opportunity." A new trend led by "a generation eager for digital ownership" may be on the horizon. As Elkaleh emphasizes:

"The 'youth dilemma' of Bitcoin stems from the widening gap between its 'institutional maturity' and 'cultural relevance.' The willingness of young investors to hold Bitcoin has not disappeared, but their first touchpoint with cryptocurrency is increasingly 'culturally relevant assets' rather than Bitcoin. While institutions and ETFs have enhanced Bitcoin's credibility, they have also shifted its focus away from the 'grassroots community' and 'native online communities.'"

Bridging the Gap: How Can Bitcoin Integrate into Youth Culture?

So, how can Bitcoin break through the current dominance of 'older investors' and attract creators, gamers, and digital entrepreneurs from Generation Z? The answer lies in 'practicality, trust, and cultural integration.' Cardone's viewpoint is straightforward:

"Bitcoin does not need to 'change itself' for Generation Z; rather, Generation Z needs to 'awaken to Bitcoin.' But I can tell you that to make Bitcoin more attractive, three things must be done: education, empowerment, and experience."

Ristau believes the focus should be more on "the practicality of Bitcoin" and "the growing global use cases." He points out:

"Anti-inflation, financial freedom, and reducing global remittance costs — these are key selling points. In recent years, cryptocurrency remittance volume has grown by over 400%. This story should be at the core of the promotion."

Elkaleh also emphasizes that Bitcoin's narrative needs a "refresh" and must be firmly rooted in "practicality":

"Equally important is updating the narrative framework. The positioning of 'digital gold' resonates with institutions and long-term investors but fails to explain Bitcoin's 'practical value' to ordinary people. For young users, Bitcoin's 'relevance' lies in what it can 'achieve' — privacy protection, self-custody, censorship resistance, and supporting socially-oriented transactions. By combining these core principles with specific scenarios like 'cross-border remittances' and 'community donations,' Bitcoin's significance can transcend 'price volatility' itself."

The survival threats Bitcoin faces are more numerous than any digital product. It has endured the pessimism of Wall Street giants and withstood pressure from regulators. However, its greatest threat may be the "loss of youthful spark" — those rebels, dreamers, and builders who give Bitcoin its soul.

Will Bitcoin ultimately become a "museum exhibit" or a "currency that changes the world"? The answer, as always, depends on "how many people are willing to take up its torch."

Ultimately, the existence of "free currency" depends on whether the narrative can shift from "heritage asset" to "meaningful story." From its inception, Bitcoin should not have been "boring." To continue evolving over the next decade and beyond, it needs "vitality," not just "value."

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。