"Trillion-Dollar Scam"? This article bearish on Bitcoin makes 5 fatal mistakes

A recent article has been going viral in the community—an analysis of the tragedy of veteran OG Yang Haipo—claiming that cryptocurrency has reached its end.

The entire piece is logically tight, data-rich, and the deduction complete; in fact, after reading it, it’s hard not to be shaken.

Its core conclusion is simple:

Bitcoin is a system without cash flow, continuously consuming, relying on new funds to sustain itself, and will ultimately collapse.

Does that sound familiar? If you’ve been in this industry long enough, you’ll notice—every cycle, there are always people bearish on Bitcoin, claiming it’s a Ponzi scheme.

In 2014, someone said so; in 2018, someone said so; in 2022, someone said so; now it’s 2026, and still, some are saying the same.

But each time, Bitcoin seems to withstand the pressure, rebounding fiercely each cycle.

So here, I won’t “counter” first. Let’s break down this seemingly foolproof logic—what issues might it have?

First cut: He treats Bitcoin and the entire industry as a company

This is the most subtle yet deadliest flaw in the entire article. The author uses a very familiar analytical approach: calculating total industry revenue, total costs, plus cash flow and consumption, to conclude that: this is a negative-sum system with no income!

Sounds reasonable, right? But the problem is—Bitcoin is not a company, and the entire cryptocurrency industry is not a company.

The author begins with an example of gold, saying half of gold’s demand is for physical consumption, with zero maintenance costs. He claims Bitcoin has mining costs—doesn’t gold also have mining costs? Gold itself doesn’t generate cash flow, and sovereign currencies also lack cash flow and profit-making ability.

Both sovereign currencies and gold are products of consensus, or rather, monetary systems. Gold has been a consensus for thousands of years; in ancient times, people used shells as exchange media. Currency systems are enforced by state power. A piece of paper with 100 yuan doesn’t mean that the paper is worth 100 yuan; it’s the state’s enforcement. Some sovereign currencies lose credibility and rapidly devalue—like Zimbabwean dollars.

Therefore, Bitcoin is an asset within a consensus system. A company can be valued with DCF, but currencies and consensus assets should be valued based on: consensus, scarcity, liquidity, and trust networks.

So, applying a “company model” at the top level to deny the “monetary system” is a mistake—it’s like using a thermometer to measure length.

Second cut: “Negative-sum system”? That’s a fallacy

The article presents a “shocking” formula: net inflow = historical consumption + margin balance. Historical consumption includes electricity for mining, earnings of industry practitioners, exchange revenues; margin includes stablecoins and coin issuance balances within the system.

Through extensive valuation calculations, it concludes that Bitcoin is a negative-sum game—many readers might be convinced here.

But there’s a fatal misdirection: he treats all costs as “consumption.”

Let’s look at it from another angle: gold mining requires electricity, machinery, labor; gold industry workers need wages; gold storage costs money; gold trading also costs money. If you really count it this way, gold is also a negative-sum system.

Fiat currency systems are the same: printing money, circulation, bank staff wages. Fiat systems are also negative-sum.

But the reality is—these systems haven’t collapsed; instead, they form the underlying structure of the world.

Where’s the problem? The problem is that cost ≠ consumption! It’s because these costs exist, and people are working for them, that they have value.

For example, the cost of fiat currency is printing, circulation, and the military power backing the state, which allows fiat to maintain its value. These costs are what turn money into a “trust asset.”

Similarly, Bitcoin’s electricity consumption is essentially converting electricity into tamper-proof security; it’s also about forging trust. Likewise, AI now is turning electricity into tokens, which also have value.

Third cut: “No external income”? That’s outdated

A key point in the article: the crypto world has no external cash flow!

Currently, the stablecoin market in crypto is growing steadily, and with the passage of stablecoin legislation, more stablecoins are expected to go on-chain. I estimated this scale could reach trillions of dollars; now it’s over 401k, doubling since 2021.

Moreover, ETFs and DAT companies are entering the space, with increasing numbers—not only Bitcoin ETFs but also ETH, SOL, SUI, even DOGE ETFs.

And Trump announced a 401(k) plan, allowing US pensions to partially participate in crypto. These are traditional financial funds, so external cash flow is actually increasing, and at a rapid pace! The article mentions this, but his view is that future inflows will stop—well, we’ll see! After all, this is just personal opinion, not a factual basis.

Fourth cut: “Buyers are exhausted”? Repeatedly proven wrong in history

The article also claims: no new buyers, whether retail, ETFs, or DAT, will continue to increase; this is the last blood transfusion!

In fact, every cycle, there are similar claims—no more “chives” (new entrants) to buy in. The author hides a key assumption: that the market is linearly growing!

No one can predict who the next buyers will be, because the industry is evolving. Who would have thought in 2016 that DeFi would emerge? Back then, everyone said public chains were saturated, no new stories. In 2019, NFTs appeared; in 2022, ETFs came out, etc.

Fifth cut: The scam of high price-to-sales ratios

The article concludes by saying crypto’s price-to-sales ratio far exceeds traditional assets. If we compare Bitcoin to a company, then by analogy, comparing to fiat—whose market cap is tens of trillions of dollars—is similar, so no need to criticize further.

Finally, I think the biggest problem with the article isn’t the data listed, but a fundamental “misunderstanding”: it assumes that price is the result. In a monetary system, price itself is determined by consensus. If the state declares that this paper bill is worth 100, then it is 100; if people believe gold is worth 4,000, then it’s worth 4,000.

Similarly, I could tell my friend that a heart-shaped stone is worth 100,000, and it would be worth that.

This article seems to deny Bitcoin, but if you apply the same logic to gold and fiat, it also denies gold, fiat, and even human trust systems.

Some things, once you compare them, reveal the problem. Bitcoin will go to zero only if everyone stops believing in it. As long as two people believe in its value, it won’t go to zero!

If you find this article valuable, share it with someone recently scared by “Bitcoin will go to zero.” Some logic, if not broken down carefully, can really deceive you.