Can the OG crypto win over Gen-Z before it’s too late?

Bitcoin began life as a rank outsider. It did not emerge from the ingenuity of Silicon Valley or from the boardrooms of central banks. Rather, Bitcoin’s arrival in the fallout from the Great Financial Crisis was both perfect and deeply subversive.

A whitepaper published on a cypherpunk mailing list by the mysterious Satoshi Nakamoto launched a peer-to-peer payment network that could bypass the compromised machinery of post-2008 finance.

Bitcoin was “F-you money”, a pure play against savages, bank failures and central planning. Early adopters see themselves as digital renegades, building the foundations for a new kind of freedom money. Without censorship, without borders, and untethered from the whims of officials and the failures of older institutions. Satoshi published January 17, 2009:

“It might make sense just to get something in case it sticks. If enough people think the same way, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

From the original rebel to the institutional darling

In 15 years, Bitcoin went from a nerdy whitepaper to a worldwide monetary network worth more than $2 trillion. Regulatory acceptance, once the most distant horizon, has finally dawned; first with cautious productions, then with title approval. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant remarked on the anniversary of Bitcoin’s inception:

“17 years after the white paper, the Bitcoin network is still operational and more resilient than ever. Bitcoin never stops.”

With each stage – spot ETF launches, Wall Street assigning billions, Washington passing bills, or Bitcoin held on the balance sheets of public companies – the original rebel apparently conquered every mountain.

But with legitimacy comes a slower threat: relevance. Technologies that shake the world live only as long as their stories resonate. And the next generation is not buying.

The graveyard of Bitcoin obituaries

To write the obituary of Bitcoin has become a tired genre (if not an industry). Whether it was the ambiguity of the initial code, the catastrophic hack of Mt. Gox, China’s mining ban, regulatory hammer blows, or the specter of quantum computing, there have been more than 450 headlines declaring Bitcoin dead.

Warren Buffett, “Oracle of Omaha,” called it “square rat poison.” Jamie Dimon said:

“I have always been completely opposed to crypto, Bitcoin, etc. The only real use case for it is criminals, drug dealers… money laundering, tax avoidance… If I were the government, I would shut it down.”

Yet every crisis seems to strengthen Bitcoin’s immune system. After every regulatory scare, security meltdown, or bear market, the network persists, the blocks keep ticking, and a new narrative has emerged: Bitcoin is unstoppable.

This belief has become so pervasive that even the likes of Russian President Vladimir Putin have echoed it on the record: :

“Bitcoin, who can ban it? No one. And who can ban the use of other electronic payment instruments? No one, because these are new technologies.”

Indeed, Bitcoin has become the spiritual successor of gold for the digital millennial class: anti-fragile, and (if survival counts for anything) immortal.

But as Casa CSO and Bitcoin security expert Jameson Lopp previously told Slate SundaysThe biggest threat to Bitcoin isn’t technological magic or regulatory rigor. In 2025, it’s apathy: we don’t care enough young people.

Gen-Z: Short on cash, short on Bitcoin

‘Zoomers’, the cohort born on iPhones and Instagram, raised on YouTube and TikTok, and entering adulthood amid the fatigue of “late capitalism”, is rewriting the economic playbook.

The average Gen-Z graduate faces stagnant wages, remote odds of affording a mortgage, evaporation of top-tier jobs, and new levels of credit card debt. When “the future” doesn’t exist beyond the next payment, why store value for tomorrow? As Sean Ristau, VP of Digital Assets at InvestiFi, told Slate Sundays:

“Bitcoin started as a direct challenge to the financial system, a form of protest. Now it looks more like digital gold, mainly controlled by whales and banks. For young people dealing with inflation, debt and rising costs, this image does not connect.”

Bitcoin, for all its market machismo, seems suspiciously boomerish to many of Gen-Z. Their first champions bear the battle scars of 2008, while Zoomers have only known stock memes, Robinhood options and dog tokens.

ProCap BTC CIO and Bitwise board member Jeff Park warns that the Bitcoin narrative needs to change. Gen-Z craves meaning, he arguesno inflation coverage, and:

“In the end, the whole thesis of Bitcoin breaks down if young people don’t buy it.”

Discussing the same issue on a recent What Bitcoin Did podcast, American HODL acknowledged:

“It’s actually a massive problem that Gen-Z doesn’t have enough interest in Bitcoin because they’re too nihilistic. We have to keep reaching out and trying to shake them up, and be like, “Dude, do something now before it’s too late!” from a point of view of self-preservation and for their own good. It’s both things.”

The Political Background: Red vs. Blue HODLing

The partisan divide around Bitcoin has never been stronger. When the Biden administration doubled down Choke Point 2.0 against crypto companies, the party line has become “crypto bad, oversight good.”

In contrast, MAGA Republicans, libertarian stalwarts, and some moderate centrists now see embracing Bitcoin as a way to show support for fiscal independence and national renewal.

But the Zoomers stretch out. They have joined online communities where solidarity trumps speculation. Bitcoin policy, once pitched as freedom by governments, now struggles against the rising tides of economic anxiety and rampant mistrust not only in DC, but in anything institutional. Park warned:

“There is a reason that the socialist candidates did not embrace Bitcoin in the elections – it is not because they are afraid of “the establishment”, they came to the conclusion that it will hurt them. This is unequivocally bad. Bitcoin and Mamdani must be the same platform for Bitcoin to win, not Bitcoin and Ackman.”

While Trump and a growing cadre of Republican voices embrace Bitcoin as patriotic technology, left-leaning Gen-Zers are turning to socialist brands like Zohran Mamdani. Bitcoin stands as a libertarian side (or worse), part of the stodgy old guard. Either way, it’s a far cry from the street rebel it once was.

Why Bitcoin Philosophy Fails to Land

Bitcoin’s original pitch of freedom from banks, inflation-proof savings, and digital unseizability just doesn’t generate much excitement among young people. For them, money is less like a fortress to be defended and more like a set of points in a never-ending game: always in play and constantly in motion. Bitget Wallet CMO Jamie Elkaleh told Slate Sundays:

“Gen Z’s investment culture is faster, social and memetic. They gravitate towards community-driven tokens, AI-linked assets and creator economies because they feel participatory and aligned with their digital behaviors.

Younger users often see Bitcoin as an asset for funds and treasures rather than a platform where they can participate directly… The narrative of Bitcoin as “digital gold” offers security and prestige, but lacks the interactive, goal-driven energy that defines this generation’s engagement with finance.

Ristau added:

“Crypto ownership is growing rapidly (more than half of Gen Z has owned digital assets at some point), but Bitcoin’s audience is still skewed older, wealthier, and mostly male. Are younger users chasing very different things: memecoins with a purpose, tokens linked to AI, and social or gaming projects that feel fun, useful, or connected by the community?”.

Demographic problem or demographic opportunity?

Is it any wonder that young people under 25 are increasingly disenchanted with the world and their place in it? High inflation, unaffordable wealth creation, and zero trust in the institutions their parents relied on.

Paradoxically, this struggle could drive the next wave of adoption. Grant Cardone, CEO of Cardone Capital, told Slate Sundays:

“There is no ‘youth dilemma’ in Bitcoin. The real problem is not the age of the holders; it is the mentality. Gen-Z has been told to exchange memes instead of building wealth. They chase fast money instead of legacy money. Bitcoin was built for people who think long-term, who understand that control, scarcity and freedom are found.”

In this case, Bitcoin’s supposed “demographic problem” becomes more of a demographic opportunity. A new wave, led by a generation ready to claim digital ownership. As Elkaleh emphasized:

“Bitcoin’s youth dilemma arises from a growing gap between its institutional maturity and its cultural relevance. Ownership among younger investors has not disappeared, but its first point of contact increasingly comes from assets linked to culture, not from BTC. While institutions and ETFs have strengthened Bitcoin’s credibility, they have also moved its center of gravity online.

Bridging the gap: Bitcoin and youth culture

So, how does Bitcoin move beyond its gray investor base and attract Gen-Z creators, gamers and digital entrepreneurs? The answer is utility, trust and culture. Cardone is a matter of fact:

“Bitcoin doesn’t need to ‘change’ for Gen Z; Gen Z needs to wake up to Bitcoin. But I’ll tell you what makes it more attractive: education, empowerment, and experience.”

Ristau believes that the focus should be more on Bitcoin’s utility and growing use cases around the world. He points out:

“Inflation inflation, financial freedom and lower global remittance costs are essential considerations. Crypto remittances have increased by more than 400% in recent years. This story should be front and center.”

Elkaleh doubles down on the need to rejuvenate Bitcoin’s message and puts it firmly on utility as well:

“Equally important is a narrative refresh. The ‘digital gold’ framework resonates with institutions and long-term investors, but fails to explain the human utility of Bitcoin. For younger users, the relevance of Bitcoin comes from what it allows – privacy, self-custody, resistance to censorship and caused transaction. Attacking these principles, like tangible communities, means remittances, like the community. price.”

Bitcoin has suffered more existential threats than any digital creation, surviving dark prophecies of decline from Wall Street titans to the regulatory halls of power. But the biggest threat may be losing the spark of youth: the rebels, the dreamers and the builders who gave Bitcoin their soul.

Whether Bitcoin becomes a museum piece or world-changing money will depend, as always, on who cares enough to carry the torch.

Ultimately, the survival of “freedom money” depends on shifting the narrative from legacy to a story of meaning. Bitcoin was never supposed to be boring. And to thrive in the next decade and beyond, it needs to feel vital, not just valuable.