ECB representatives are known critics of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general, and their heckling seems undeserved and excessive.

The best example of this is a tweet by the bank’s representatives from 30 November 2022, when the coin market was at its price bottom shortly after the collapse of the FTX crypto exchange.

Criticism of Bitcoin from ECB representatives

At the time, they talked about Bitcoin’s “last gasp before the crypto asset loses its relevance.” Though as what’s happening in 2024 shows, the analysts were wrong again – and specifically.

What’s happening to Bitcoin – the experts’ answer

Economists argue that Satoshi Nakamoto’s original vision of Bitcoin as a global payment system has largely failed. Still, the cryptocurrency is now seen as an ever-growing investment asset.

Here is a commentary on the matter, as cited by The Block.

Bitcoin does not generate cash flow like real estate, passive income like bonds or dividends like stocks, nor can it be used productively like commodities. As a result, most established ways of calculating or estimating the fair value of an asset fail when applied to Bitcoin.


In fact, the importance of Bitcoin lies in the belief of a huge number of people in this platform. They follow the rules of the BTC network and thus create the value of a digital asset, which is also decentralised and does not depend on the work of various institutions. That is, cryptocurrency should not generate cash flows like real estate, because it first of all gives everyone the right to full ownership of money.


Top BTC holders among publicly traded companies

Even celebrities from the world of finance, following the example of Larry Fink, head of the world’s largest investment firm BlackRock, talk about BTC in this way.

That is, experts insist that all traditional financial instruments based on the first cryptocurrency appeared just because of the simple desire of investors to make money on speculation with such instruments.

Larry Fink, head of BlackRock

However, even in a scenario in which Bitcoin’s price continues to rise without the bubble bursting, late buyers of the crypto will allegedly suffer significant losses due to those lucky enough to participate in the industry at the early adoption stage. They will simply sell the coins to the latter and invest in more tangible assets.


Such an argument seems odd, because it can also be applied to any asset from the traditional sphere of finance during a downturn. In other words, buyers of a company's stock at its peak have essentially ensured the earnings of earlier investors.

For example, today Tesla shares are much cheaper than at the end of 2021, although the company generates cash flows and produces a real product. However, if we follow the logic of analysts, they cannot be considered a good instrument, as buyers of the shares in the above period of time were at a disadvantage at the moment.


Changes in Tesla’s share price over the last five years

That said, Bitcoin does not increase the productive potential of the economy, meaning it can be seen as a zero-sum game. BTC buyers are supposedly only able to capitalise on the influx of newcomers to the market. Here’s the line.

The new Lamborghini, Rolex, villas and stock portfolios of early Bitcoin investors are not the result of an increase in the productive capacity of the economy. Rather, they are funded by reducing the consumption and wealth of those who don’t initially hold BTC.

The distribution of the Bitcoin cryptocurrency across wallets in its network

Eventually, this wealth redistribution effect will accumulate, leading to greater and greater inequality among different categories of people in terms of finances. Nevertheless, such a view of the problem is hardly the only correct one.

Firstly, the emergence of Bitcoin gave a chance for the birth of a new industry in the history of mankind with a lot of its advantages. Secondly, BTC has not lost its essence as a payment instrument, and even together with other cryptocurrencies has become a saving factor for many people in developing regions with high inflation in the traditional economy.

Again, early buyers of certain stocks also got rich much more actively than later investors. However, ECB representatives criticise BTC directly.

Bitcoin’s strength against fiat currencies

Significant changes in coin allocation are also taking place in the Efirium ecosystem. In particular, the equivalent of more than $50 million in ETH is now held in hoarding wallets that are used solely to hold coins.

According to CryptoQuant analyst under the pseudonym Burakkesmeci, this is 65 per cent more than the result from the beginning of 2024. In other words, the trend here is obvious.

ETH accumulation on wallets

Wallet accumulation is an important indicator for traders and market participants, as it gives an indication of the overall confidence in the long-term prospects of Efirium. The analyst believes that the total amount of ETH in these wallets will “exceed 20 million coins” by the end of 2024.

He bases much of his reasoning on expectations surrounding the launch of spot Efirium-based ETFs in July 2024 in the US. Here’s his commentary.

It’s not just for tech enthusiasts anymore – institutionalists and individuals see ether as a key part of the future of finance.

According to Cointelegraph’s sources, the spot Efirium-ETF has recorded a total net outflow of $467.3 million since its launch on 23 July.

Therefore, this instrument is significantly losing popularity to spot Bitcoin-ETFs. They came into existence in the first half of January 2024 and have since raised a net capital of more than $20 billion.

Inflows and outflows from spot Efirium-ETFs

Even though the launch of Efirium-ETFs was relatively weak, these instruments still performed among the best in the US stock market in 2024. Which means market players’ interest in what’s going on is still substantial.


Overall, the criticism of Bitcoin by ECB representatives still seems unconvincing. Judging by its format, the bankers do not even try to realise the importance of the existence of a decentralised asset. Instead, they compare it to representatives of the traditional economy and try to humiliate BTC in this way.