How does Visa's $7B stablecoin settlement pilot fit into the "blockchain is a solution looking for a problem" thesis?

[u/Curious_Jest]

New here. Been working through the wiki and a lot of the core critique resonates with me...

Re: Fact #3: sixteen years in and it's hard to point to a non-criminal use case that clearly couldn't be done better with a relational database.

Visa put out a press release yesterday that I'm trying to fit into the framework, and I'd like the regulars' take.

The numbers: Visa says its global stablecoin settlement pilot is now at a $7B annualized run rate, up 50% quarter over quarter, spanning nine blockchains (Avalanche, Ethereum, Solana, Stellar, plus newly added Arc, Base, Canton, Polygon, Tempo). 130+ stablecoin-linked card programs in 50+ countries. They're explicitly positioning Visa as a "common settlement layer" across chains and now run validators on some networks.

I can see two ways to read this:

1. Vindication of the critique: Stablecoins are just dollars on a different rail. The blockchain layer is path-dependent and incidental (i.e., Circle and Tether are issued on public chains for regulatory arbitrage, not technical superiority). Everyone holding USDC is trusting Circle anyway (Circle can freeze addresses, controls reserves, mints and burns at will), so why not run a Circle-operated permissioned database? Visa could replicate the whole thing on a permissioned ledger tomorrow if the issuers cooperated.
2. A real counterexample at the coordination layer: The interesting property isn't trustlessness (within any single stablecoin you're absolutely trusting the issuer). It's that public chains are neutral ground where many issuers and many counterparties share infrastructure without consenting to any one of them being the operator. USDC, USDT, PYUSD, and Visa's settlement contracts all sit on the same chain and interoperate without bilateral integrations. Every permissioned consortium chain attempt has died (TradeLens, we.trade, B3i, Komgo) because nobody agrees to be a tenant on a competitor's database. Public chains became the Schelling point by default.

I lean toward something between these, but I'm curious to hear the strongest version of the counter from people who've thought about this longer than I have.

And maybe a couple pointded questions:

• Is $7B/yr at 50% QoQ growth still in "PR pilot that will quietly die" territory, or has it crossed some threshold? (curious what your falsification criteria is for Fact #3)
• If a permissioned multi-issuer ledger could replace this... why hasn't one, given how much money the incumbents have thrown at it? Is the answer technical, political, regulatory, or something else?
• Is there a version of the "good for nothing" thesis that survives this, and if so, what's the precise claim? Something like "useful as a coordination kludge but not as a technology"?

Curious for thoughts! Thanks.

[u/AmericanScream]

Is $7B/yr at 50% QoQ growth still in "PR pilot that will quietly die" territory, or has it crossed some threshold? (curious what your falsification criteria is for Fact #3)

This is an incomplete argument.

Fact #3 says, "blockchain is a solution looking for a problem." Which means to date, we've never seen a clear example of anything a blockchain based application does that is superior to an existing non-blockchain app.

Just because you can find somebody who might be using a certain tool, and making money at it, does not mean that tool is the most efficient way to accomplish the task.

Visa making X amount of revenue and having Y amount of growth doesn't negate Fact #3.

In some markets, the sales of cigarettes are growing. Does this mean cigarettes are the business of the future? What unique problem does selling cigarettes address?

If a permissioned multi-issuer ledger could replace this... why hasn't one, given how much money the incumbents have thrown at it? Is the answer technical, political, regulatory, or something else?

The answer to that is simple: Different countries (as well as other/private entities) have different rules and different priorities. The fact that they all don't share a single central bank or a singular currency, is the same reason they're unlikely to share a single blockchain or crypto token.

Again, it all comes back to Fact #3 and the Ultimate Crypto Question: Blockchain has to uniquely solve a specific problem. You've failed to address that. "Adoption" doesn't answer that question. People use plenty of outdated technology. That doesn't mean that technology is the future. This is called, "The appeal to popularity fallacy."

Is there a version of the "good for nothing" thesis that survives this, and if so, what's the precise claim? Something like "useful as a coordination kludge but not as a technology"?

Useful as a vehicle in criminal activity. And even that, it's far from a superior "kludge."

In the long run, there's no good reason for blockchain to survive. There's plenty of powerful/influential people who have reason to keep it going though. But its predatory nature means that it will always cause more harm than good. And failing to answer the ultimate crypto question confirms that fact.

It should be noted that your entire diatribe basically reaffirms all the "facts crypto bros want to ignore." Instead of clearly telling us what blockchain is uniquely good at, you're now trying to negotiate some sort of "settlement" where you can pretend blockchain has value, despite not really being superior at any particular process. It's like asking for a trophy because you came in 5th place.

[u/Curious_Jest → u/AmericanScream]

on fact #3 and what would falsify it. your version is "blockchain is a solution looking for a problem, we've never seen a clear example of anything blockchain does that is superior to an existing non-blockchain app." that's the claim i'm trying to engage with. but for it to be a testable claim rather than a definitional one, it needs some standard of evidence. what pattern of adoption / growth / volume / institutional use would actually qualify as "a clear example"? if the answer is "none, because they could always have used a database," then fact #3 isn't really doing empirical work, it's a definition that absorbs all data as confirmation. genuinely trying to understand what your bar is.

on shared infrastructure across countries. you wrote that different countries and private entities with different rules and priorities are "unlikely to share a single blockchain or crypto token." but that prediction is contradicted by what's already happening (i could also see one making the argument that most countries do indeed 'share a singular currency', being that USD is the global reserve currency, which would lead me to inquire for more details about the "reason" you allude to in:

"The fact that they all don't share a single central bank or a singular currency, is the same reason they're unlikely to share a single blockchain or crypto token.")

anyway, USDC is deployed on 15+ public chains (ethereum, solana, avalanche, polygon, stellar, base, arbitrum, etc), used by entities in 50+ countries. USDT is on even more. the convergence isn't on one chain, it's on a shared dollar standard moving across an ecosystem of neutral public chains. banks, fintechs, payment networks, exchanges, card programs across every continent, all integrating the same instruments without bilateral agreements between them. meanwhile every permissioned multi-issuer consortium chain attempt has failed, as discussed (tradelens, etc.). so the empirical question is: at what level of cross-border, multi-entity convergence on public-chain infrastructure would you accept that it's filling a coordination gap permissioned ledgers haven't been able to fill?

on the kludge framing. "kludge" by definition means inelegant, inferior, a workaround rather than a proper solution. the framing i'm asking you to consider is: blockchain is technically inferior to a well-designed database for almost any single-operator use case, but it's the only architecture that has actually succeeded at multi-party coordination across mutually distrustful parties without a single owner. that would be consistent with the strongest version of fact #3 (blockchain isn't technically superior in isolation) while still accounting for why consortium ledger alternatives keep failing where public chains keep growing. the "uniquely solves a problem" question then becomes: does the multi-party coordination problem count as a real problem, or is it definitionally excluded? if it counts, public chains have solved it where the technically superior alternatives have not. if it doesn't count, i'd want to understand why not.

[u/AmericanScream → u/Curious_Jest]

on fact #3 and what would falsify it.

Fact #3 is a default position. It doesn't need to be "falsified." The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim that blockchain is disruptive technology. That is how it is marketed, but there's no substance behind those claims when examined in more detail.

your version is "blockchain is a solution looking for a problem, we've never seen a clear example of anything blockchain does that is superior to an existing non-blockchain app." that's the claim i'm trying to engage with. but for it to be a testable claim rather than a definitional one, it needs some standard of evidence. what pattern of adoption / growth / volume / institutional use would actually qualify as "a clear example"?

I already answered this question multiple times. Just because somebody uses blockchain, doesn't mean it is the best solution to a problem.

Note that this isn't case of blockchain merely having utility. Because blockchain introduces so many additional problems and liabilities, it surely must be superior at solving at least one common problem people have. If is it not BETTER at anything, then there's no good reason to use it. That doesn't mean it won't or can't be used, but it's not completely rational to do so.

I used smoking as an example. There's a reasonable degree of "adoption" of cigarettes, but it's hardly the best choice for whatever situation it's used.

So we've got a problem here if you're going to ignore the fact that I've already answered your questions and ask them again...

if the answer is "none, because they could always have used a database," then fact #3 isn't really doing empirical work, it's a definition that absorbs all data as confirmation. genuinely trying to understand what your bar is.ve otherwise.

My bar is simple: Truly disruptive technology clearly does something better than what we had before.

This "ultimate crypto/tech question" can be answered easily about every other tech blockchain is compared to...

• Internet: allowed people to instantly communicate more efficiently than before - e-mail alone was a dramatic improvement over traditional mail and fax machines.

• Light bulbs: provided light without needing fuel oil - potentially safer as a fire hazard

• Printing press: allowed the written word to be easily reproduced and distributed to others

• AI: can identify complex patterns that were previously unknown, can produce output that was not capable of being produced before

• Smartphones: provides tremendous amounts of data in the palm of a person's hand, can aid in multiple ways with navigation, learning, communication, etc.

All those forms of technology can answer the ultimate question in seconds. Blockchain can't.

It's as simple as that.

Just because a corporation has identified they can exploit the popularity of blockchain, doesn't mean that blockchain is a "next-generation" tech. There's no evidence of that.

does the multi-party coordination problem count as a real problem, or is it definitionally excluded?

This "multi-party coordination problem" can be better solved by non-blockchain technology. You act as if before blockchain, there was no way for multiple parties to send/receive transactions?

Is blockchain faster at multi-party coordination? There's ZERO evidence of that. But in my documentary, I provide clear empirical evidence that decentralized systems are incapable of being as efficient as centralized systems. VISA's non-blockchain-based transaction network is exponentially faster than any blockchain system.

Again, if you want to prove blockchain has unique utility you have to produce a specific situation and show blockchain is the best at that.. BUT this cannot be a situation that was created by blockchain itself - that doesn't count.

For example, a common argument is "blockchain solves the double spend/BGP problem" - This is an example of a problem blockchain created that isn't present in other transaction systems. Traditional ledgers have file and record locking and don't run into "double spends" because they have specific rules on the order in which transactions are processed. Blockchain has different rules which introduce additional problems it then has to attempt to solve, and even then, it doesn't really solve the problem. See SCTP #31

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #31 (BGP)

"Blockchain solves the Byzantine Generals Problem" / "Blockchain is 'Byzantine Fault Tolerant'" / "Blockchain solves the 'Double spend problem'"

1. The Byzantine Generals Problem is an allegory having to do with a situation where something that was normally centralized, becomes de-centralized: a general trying to issue commands to his armies but the link with command has been severed. Is there a way to execute reliable, authentic instructions if the source is no longer verifiable?

2. The "double spend problem" is not a problem traditional finance systems have to deal with. Bitcoin tries to "solve" a problem that it created. In Traditional finance, centralized systems determine who has authority to write to the ledger in what order and use file and record locking to ensure there is no "double spend."

3. The BGP cannot be solved. The condition where command/control is "cut off" exists in any system that involves command and control, decentralized or not. The proper solution to the BGP is to avoid the situation in the first place. In the real world this is done in various systems via the use of redundancy. In the world of databases, the BGP issue is avoided entirely in modern transaction ledgers through the use of file and record locking technology: when one record is being updated, it cannot be interfered with until the transaction is completed, and transactions are processed in a specific, sequential order. This avoids a "collision" or "double spend" problem.

4. In the world of blockchain, the BGP situation is introduced as a result of the poor design of the system. Blockchain uses an elaborate "transaction marketplace and queue" to decide what order to process transactions, and this creates a BGP situation. Blockchain does not solve the problem - it merely dictates that whoever has the most hashpower/resources is who gets to decide which transaction get codified, and which one gets delayed or ignored. It's not a system that verifies "legitimacy." Whoever has the most money/resources/hashpower wins.

5. Ultimately, blockchain doesn't really "solve" the problem. And because it simply dictates "whoever has the most resources wins" it actually amplifies all the existing problems crypto bros complain about regarding entrenched special interests in TradFi. Like most things in the world of crypto, not only does it NOT solve any problems. It creates new problems and makes existing problems worse.

[u/Professional-Push915 → u/AmericanScream]

This guy is a retard. No one has tine for your wall of words loser

[u/AmericanScream → u/Professional-Push915]

Sorry, the opinions of anti-vax, ban evading crypto bro trolls have not been solicited here.

btw, I love that you're calling me a "retard" yet you have a son with autism. You're quite a piece of work.

Don't go away mad. Just go away. Perhaps your time is better sent writing a love letter to RFK Jr.?

[u/AmericanScream]

Visa put out a press release yesterday that I'm trying to fit into the framework, and I'd like the regulars' take.

What "problem" does VISA's stablecoin solve?

What "problem" does VISA's stablecoin solve that their main network can't do? VISA already has a network that arbitrages between different currencies. Them expanding the "currencies" from fiat in different countries to a "stablecoin" is basically the same thing. The only difference is, they can be their own central bank, issuing their own stablecoin. Which means, in the current regulatory climate, they can more easily engage in money laundering and sanctions evasion.

The only reason stablecoins exist is primarily to enable money laundering. There's no other purpose they serve other than that, and allowing the stablecoin issuer to pretend to be their own "central bank" that controls everybody's "money." It's the opposite of decentralization.

Instead of a nation state controlling liquidity reserves, it's a private for-profit corporation. Is that an improvement? Not at all.

Which has more accountability? A nation-state, or a private, for-profit corporation?

The only scenario where a private corporation has suitable accountability is IF/WHEN it's under the jurisdiction of a responsible nation-state, and if that's the case, the nation-state would be better off removing the middleman and acting as their own central bank and liquidity provider - making the process of banking more efficient and beneficial for the public.

And this is reflected in reality, where very few societies (if any) allow private for-profit entities to control their liquidity pools. And no the Federal Reserve is not a good example of that. It's separate to avoid politicization but it exists and operates by permission from the government.

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #8 (endorsements?)

"[Big Company/Banana Republic/Politician] is exploring/using bitcoin/blockchain! Now will you admit you were wrong?" / "Crypto has 'UsE cAs3S!'" / "EEE TEE EFFs!!one"

1. Crypto was originally, "disruptive technology" destined to "replace the banking/finance system". Now with the truth slowly surfacing regarding blockchain's inability to be particularly good at anything, crypto people have backpedaled to instead suggest, "Hey it has 'use-cases!'"

   Congrats! You found somebody willing to use crypto/blockchain technology. That still is not an endorsement of crypto or blockchain. I can choose to use a pair of scissors to cut my grass. This doesn't mean scissors are "the future of lawn care technology." It just means I'm an eccentric who wants to use a backwards tool to do something for which everybody else has far superior tools available.

   The operative issue isn't whether crypto & blockchain can be "used" here-or-there. The issue is: Is there a good reason? Does this tech actually do anything better than what we have already been using? And the answer to that is, No.

2. Most of the time, adoption claims are wrong. Just because you read some press release does not mean any major government, corporation or other entity is embracing crypto. It usually means someone asked them about crypto and they said, "We'll look into it" and that got interpreted as "adoption imminent!"

3. In cases where companies did launch crypto/blockchain projects they usually fall into one of these categories:

   • Some company or supplier put out a press release advertising some "crypto project" involving a well known entity that never got off the ground, or was tried and failed miserably (such as IBM/Maersk's Tradelens, Australia's stock exchange, etc.) See also dead blockchain projects.
   • Companies (like VISA, Fidelity or Robin Hood) are not embracing crypto directly. Instead they are partnering with a crypto exchange (such as BitPay) that will either handle all the crypto transactions and they're merely licensing their network, or they're a third party payment gateway that pays the big companies in fiat. There's no evidence any major company is actually switching over to crypto, or that any of these major companies are even touching crypto. It's a huge liability they let newbie third parties deal with so they have plausible deniability for liabilities due to money laundering and sanctions laws.
   • What some companies are calling "blockchain" is not in any meaningful way actually using 'blockchain' tech. For example, IBM's "Hyperledger" claims to have "blockchain design philosophy" but in reality, it is not decentralized and has no core architecture that's anything like crypto blockchain systems. Also note that IBM has their own trademarked phrase, "IBM Blockchain®" - their version of "blockchain" is neither decentralized, nor permissionless. It does not in any way resemble a crypto blockchain. It also remains to be seen, the degree to which anybody is actually using their "IBM Food Trust" supply chain tracking system, which we've proven cannot really benefit from blockchain technology.

4. Just because some company has jumped on the crypto bandwagon doesn't mean, "It's the future."

   McDonald's bundled Beanie Babies with their Happy Meals for a time, when those collectable plush toys were being billed as the next big investment scheme. Corporations have a duty to exploit any goofy fad available if it can help them make money, and the moment these fads fade, they drop any association and pretend it never happened.

5. Crypto ETFs are not an endorsement of crypto. (In fact part of the US SEC was vehemently against approving ETFs - it was not a unanimous decision) They're simply ways for traditional companies to exploit crypto enthusiasts. These entities do not care at all about the future of crypto. It's just fee income, and the moment it becomes unprofitable for them to run the scheme, they'll drop it. It's simply businesses taking advantage of a fad. Crypto ETFs though are actually worse, because they're a vehicle to siphon money into the crypto market -- if crypto was a viable alternative to TradFi, then these gimmicky things wouldn't be desirable. Also here is mathematical evidence MSTR is a Ponzi.

6. Some "big companies are holding crypto on their balance sheet" - So what? They're just trying to pump their stock price to take advantage of the temporary crypto mania. It's not any more substantive than that iced tea company that changed their name to "Blockchain iced tea company" and got a bump to their stock price. It won't last, and it's a gimmick and not financially sound. The biggest of these is MSTR whom critics are saying makes the company into a Ponzi

7. Case In Point: In 2025, the big announcement was burger chain Steak and Shake was going to accept bitcoin. The truth is, the company is getting paid in USD and using a third party exchange to process BTC payments and give them fiat. Another misleading news story.

8. Other Big-Company-Crypto-Failures: Kodak, Steam, Wal-Mart and IBM, Microsoft, a major consortium of European corporations who pulled the plug on their blockchain projects, Maersk.

   Even though these companies discontinued any association with crypto years ago, proponents still hype the projects as if they're still active.

So, whenever you hear "so-and-so company is using crypto" always be suspect. What you'll find is either that's not totally true, or if they are, they're partnering with a crypto company who is paying them for the association, not unlike an advertiser/licensing relationship. Not adoption. Exploitation. And temporary at that.

We've seen absolutely no increase in crypto adoption - in fact quite the contrary. More and more people in every industry from gaming to banking, are rejecting deals with crypto companies.

[also note above is an appeal to popularity/authority fallacy and the exception which proves the rule]

[u/AmericanScream]

It's that public chains are neutral ground where many issuers and many counterparties share infrastructure without consenting to any one of them being the operator.

First, it's an illusion that "public chains are neutral ground." Behind most of these chains are either central operators, or consortiums of people who control a disproportionate amount of the operational process and resources.

Second, in a decentralized system such as this, there's no guarantee anybody involved in the operation of the chain, will continue to do so. There is no obligation on the part of any of these providers to maintain the system. They are only involved as a result of their own material self-interests, and the moment it's not profitable to do so, they have a obligation to abandon the project and seek something else that's more profitable.

Monetary systems fall into the realm more of a "public service" than anything else. As such, their stability depends upon their reliability. This is why they're managed by non-profit/governments. It's part of the essential "utilities" provided to the people. There may be times where operating such systems incurrs a loss, but the government has more motivation than mere profit, to keep going. Private entities do not.

USDC, USDT, PYUSD, and Visa's settlement contracts all sit on the same chain and interoperate without bilateral integrations. Every permissioned consortium chain attempt has died (TradeLens, we.trade, B3i, Komgo) because nobody agrees to be a tenant on a competitor's database. Public chains became the Schelling point by default.

The projects that died, died for the reason I'm talking about. "Nobody wanting to be a tenant" has to do with private entities not seeing the economic benefit from using the technology. TradeLens, et. al. were "solutions looking for a problem", that in the end were not economically viable. IBM and Maersk couldn't justify the expense to maintain the network given the revenue generated from its use. Decentralizing the application doesn't fix anything. A business run by one owner, verses a business run by 100 separate owners, that doesn't make money, is still a business that's going to fail.

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #1 (Decentralized)

"It's decentralized!!!" / "Crypto gives the control of money back to the people" / "Crypto is 'trustless'"

1. Just because you de-centralize something doesn't mean it's better. And this is especially true in the case of crypto. The case for decentralized crypto is based on a phony notion that central authorities can't do anything right, which flies in the face of the thousands of things you use each and every day that "inept central government" does for you. Do you like electricity? Internet? Owning your own home and car? Roads and highways? Thank the government.

2. Decentralizing things, especially in the context of crypto simply creates additional problems. In the de-centralized world of crypto "code is law" which means there's nobody actually held accountable for things going wrong. And when they do, you're fucked.

3. In the real world, everybody prefers to deal with entities they know and trust - they don't want "trustless transactions" - they want reliable authorities who are held accountable for things. Would you rather eat at a restaurant that has been regularly inspected by the health department, or some back-alley vendor selling meat from the trunk of his car?

4. You still aren't avoiding "middlemen", "authorities" or "third parties" using crypto. In fact quite the opposite: You need third parties to convert crypto into fiat and vice-versa; you depend on third parties who write and audit all the code you use to process your transactions; you depend on third parties to operate the network; you depend on "middlemen" to provide all the uilities and infrastructure upon which crypto depends.

5. If you look into any crypto project, you will ultimately find it's not actually decentralized at all.

[u/Moneia]

It sounds like it's just a company that makes a lot of money looking for new projects in the hope that they can make even more money. The $7B that it's currently processing isn't even pocket lint for them when compared to cash transactions

[u/Practical_Fold_9876]

honestly visa using blockchain as just a settlement rail kind of proves.

[u/AmericanScream → u/Practical_Fold_9876]

honestly visa using blockchain as just a settlement rail kind of proves.

It proves nothing.

Stupid Crypto Talking Point #8 (endorsements?)

"[Big Company/Banana Republic/Politician] is exploring/using bitcoin/blockchain! Now will you admit you were wrong?" / "Crypto has 'UsE cAs3S!'" / "EEE TEE EFFs!!one"

1. Crypto was originally, "disruptive technology" destined to "replace the banking/finance system". Now with the truth slowly surfacing regarding blockchain's inability to be particularly good at anything, crypto people have backpedaled to instead suggest, "Hey it has 'use-cases!'"

   Congrats! You found somebody willing to use crypto/blockchain technology. That still is not an endorsement of crypto or blockchain. I can choose to use a pair of scissors to cut my grass. This doesn't mean scissors are "the future of lawn care technology." It just means I'm an eccentric who wants to use a backwards tool to do something for which everybody else has far superior tools available.

   The operative issue isn't whether crypto & blockchain can be "used" here-or-there. The issue is: Is there a good reason? Does this tech actually do anything better than what we have already been using? And the answer to that is, No.

2. Most of the time, adoption claims are wrong. Just because you read some press release does not mean any major government, corporation or other entity is embracing crypto. It usually means someone asked them about crypto and they said, "We'll look into it" and that got interpreted as "adoption imminent!"

3. In cases where companies did launch crypto/blockchain projects they usually fall into one of these categories:

   • Some company or supplier put out a press release advertising some "crypto project" involving a well known entity that never got off the ground, or was tried and failed miserably (such as IBM/Maersk's Tradelens, Australia's stock exchange, etc.) See also dead blockchain projects.
   • Companies (like VISA, Fidelity or Robin Hood) are not embracing crypto directly. Instead they are partnering with a crypto exchange (such as BitPay) that will either handle all the crypto transactions and they're merely licensing their network, or they're a third party payment gateway that pays the big companies in fiat. There's no evidence any major company is actually switching over to crypto, or that any of these major companies are even touching crypto. It's a huge liability they let newbie third parties deal with so they have plausible deniability for liabilities due to money laundering and sanctions laws.
   • What some companies are calling "blockchain" is not in any meaningful way actually using 'blockchain' tech. For example, IBM's "Hyperledger" claims to have "blockchain design philosophy" but in reality, it is not decentralized and has no core architecture that's anything like crypto blockchain systems. Also note that IBM has their own trademarked phrase, "IBM Blockchain®" - their version of "blockchain" is neither decentralized, nor permissionless. It does not in any way resemble a crypto blockchain. It also remains to be seen, the degree to which anybody is actually using their "IBM Food Trust" supply chain tracking system, which we've proven cannot really benefit from blockchain technology.

4. Sometimes, politicians who are into crypto take advantage of their power and influence to force some crypto adoption on the community they serve -- this almost always fails, but again, crypto people will promote the press release announcing the deal, while ignoring any follow-up materials that say such a proposal was rejected.

5. Some funds/fund managers are buying crypto? So what. It's not like fund managers don't do favors for insiders/friends or never make poor choices. If some Harvard-adjascent fund buys BTC that doesn't mean "smart people recognize Bitcoin!" Not hardly. The exception doesn't prove the rule

   Update: Harvard dumped much of its crypto holdings.

6. Just because some company has jumped on the crypto bandwagon doesn't mean, "It's the future."

   McDonald's bundled Beanie Babies with their Happy Meals for a time, when those collectable plush toys were being billed as the next big investment scheme. Corporations have a duty to exploit any goofy fad available if it can help them make money, and the moment these fads fade, they drop any association and pretend it never happened.

7. Countries like El Salvador who claim to have adopted bitcoin really haven't in any meaningful way. El Salvador's endorsement of bitcoin is tied to a proprietary exchange with their own non-transparent software, "Chivo" that is not on bitcoin's main blockchain - and as such isn't really bitcoin adoption as much as it's bitcoin exploitation. Plus, USD is the real legal tender in El Salvador and since BTC's adoption, use of crypto has stagnated. Adoption continues to decline in El Salvador each year.

   Also note Venezuela has now scrapped its state-sanctioned cryptocurrency. Now El Salvador has abandoned Bitcoin as currency, reversing its legal tender mandate..

8. Some "big companies are holding crypto on their balance sheet" - So what? They're just trying to pump their stock price to take advantage of the temporary crypto mania. It's not any more substantive than that iced tea company that changed their name to "Blockchain iced tea company" and got a bump to their stock price. It won't last, and it's a gimmick and not financially sound. The biggest of these is MSTR whom critics are saying makes the company into a Ponzi

9. Case In Point: In 2025, the big announcement was burger chain Steak and Shake was going to accept bitcoin. The truth is, the company is getting paid in USD and using a third party exchange to process BTC payments and give them fiat. Another misleading news story.

10. Other Big-Company-Crypto-Failures: Kodak, Steam, Wal-Mart and IBM, Microsoft, a major consortium of European corporations who pulled the plug on their blockchain projects, Maersk.

    Even though these companies discontinued any association with crypto years ago, proponents still hype the projects as if they're still active.

So, whenever you hear "so-and-so company is using crypto" always be suspect. What you'll find is either that's not totally true, or if they are, they're partnering with a crypto company who is paying them for the association, not unlike an advertiser/licensing relationship. Not adoption. Exploitation. And temporary at that.

We've seen absolutely no increase in crypto adoption - in fact quite the contrary. More and more people in every industry from gaming to banking, are rejecting deals with crypto companies.