GLJ Research CEO Gordon Johnson has reignited the debate over Bitcoin, drawing upon the late Charlie Munger’s famous critique, labeling the cryptocurrency as “rat poison.” In a recent post on X, Johnson stated, “Bitcoin, as Charlie Munger said, is rat poison. It has no use case, generates no value/cash-flow, & is worthless.” He didn’t hold back, targeting major financial institutions like BlackRock and Fidelity Investments for profiting from trading fees while allegedly fueling a speculative bubble in the cryptocurrency market.
Currently, Bitcoin is trading around $97,843, having recently dipped below the much-anticipated $100,000 threshold. Johnson highlighted how crypto miners often convert Bitcoin swiftly into traditional currency to cover their operational costs. This, he argues, undermines the cryptocurrency’s long-term value.
As Bitcoin prices fluctuate, Johnson’s words echo the skepticism Munger expressed before his passing in November 2023 at the age of 99. In a 2022 shareholder meeting, Munger explicitly warned against including Bitcoin in retirement accounts. His business partner, Warren Buffett, has been equally critical, infamously dubbing Bitcoin “rat poison squared.”
What makes these critiques resonate is the stark contrast to the increasing acceptance of cryptocurrencies among institutional investors. The SEC has recently approved spot Bitcoin ETFs, with major firms like BlackRock and Fidelity launching Bitcoin funds such as iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT) and Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund (FBTC). These products have garnered significant interest from investors, which adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing discussion about Bitcoin’s true value and viability.
As the cryptocurrency landscape shifts, Johnson’s remarks serve as a reminder of the deep-seated skepticism that still exists amidst rising institutional engagement. While some view Bitcoin as a speculative bubble or a “purely speculative tulip,” others maintain that it has potential for long-term growth. Whether Bitcoin can bridge the gap between skepticism and acceptance remains to be seen.
