Two economists who previously worked in Joe Biden’s administration have sharply criticized the cryptocurrency market, calling into question not only the prospects of Bitcoin, but also the future of other major digital assets, including ETH, BNB, XRP, SOL, and ADA.
The two figures in question are Ryan Cummings and Jared Bernstein, both of whom served on the Council of Economic Advisers under the former U.S. president. In an article published in The New York Times, they argued that the very concept of cryptocurrencies lacks fundamental meaning and that political support from Donald Trump will not be able to change the sector’s situation.
Their criticism came amid market weakness: at the time the article was published, Bitcoin was trading near $67,000, roughly 47% below the all-time high reached in the autumn of 2025. Against that backdrop, public discussion once again intensified around the idea that the crypto market may be approaching a final collapse after a series of failed deals and prolonged pressure on the sector.
Why, in Their View, Even Trump Cannot “Save” Cryptocurrencies
The central argument of their article is that the crypto industry is heading toward a serious crisis and that even active political support is incapable of stopping the process. In the critics’ view, despite unprecedented attention to digital assets from the Trump administration, the market continues to struggle with weak price action, declining interest, and growing disappointment even among those who previously supported the industry.
Previously, many supporters of the crypto industry argued that its growth had mainly been held back by the lack of favorable regulation. However, now that the United States has an administration showing a noticeably more crypto-friendly stance, that theory is effectively being tested in practice.
Bernstein and Cummings believe that the root problem does not lie in the threat of harsh regulation or in government actions as such. In their view, the deeper issue is that a significant share of digital assets was never built on clear practical utility or lasting fundamental value, aside from speculative interest.
They note that the market experienced a noticeable surge of interest ahead of the 2024 election and then again at the beginning of Trump’s second presidential term. However, that momentum proved limited: a few months later, growth effectively stalled, and the market once again came under pressure.
From the critics’ perspective, excessive political favoritism did not strengthen the legitimacy of cryptocurrencies. On the contrary, it only exposed the sector’s internal vulnerability more clearly. In other words, instead of proving the market’s resilience, the favorable external backdrop merely revealed that its growth still largely depends on expectations, speculation, and investor sentiment rather than on a stable practical foundation.
How Much the Crypto Market Actually Depends on Political Support
At the same time, the very idea that the fate of cryptocurrencies depends entirely on a particular president remains debatable. Bitcoin has existed for about 17 years, and during that time it has repeatedly gone through periods of sharp rallies, crashes, public criticism, and recurring waves of skepticism.
Donald Trump has indeed repeatedly declared his support for cryptocurrencies and tried to associate himself with the sector. However, critics point out that such actions may have both helped the market and damaged its reputation—especially amid accusations of excessive political influence, headline-grabbing statements, and suspicions of attempts to manipulate market sentiment.
On the other hand, it cannot be stated unequivocally that Trump alone determines the development of the crypto market. In the same sense, it cannot be said that Biden managed to stop its growth, despite a significantly harsher and less industry-friendly approach toward the sector. The cryptocurrency market continued to develop even in an unfavorable regulatory environment, attracting new users despite scandals, bankruptcies, and volatility.
That is why many market participants believe the industry has its own development path that cannot be reduced solely to political rhetoric. Government policy can accelerate or slow certain processes, but it does not always determine the fundamental direction of the entire sector.
Why Statements About the “Death of Crypto” Should Not Be Taken Literally
The history of digital assets has repeatedly shown that dramatic claims about the end of the cryptocurrency era appear during almost every major bear cycle. According to data from the Bitcoin is Dead tracker, Bitcoin has been declared “dead” more than 479 times, including numerous such declarations in 2025 and 2026.
This statistic alone does not prove that the market will necessarily recover quickly. However, it clearly shows something else: categorical forecasts about the total collapse of cryptocurrencies often turn out to be overly emotional and do not always stand the test of time.
Even during periods of deep drawdowns, the digital asset market has continued to preserve its ability to adapt, restructure itself, and attract a new audience. That does not eliminate the risks, high volatility, or structural weaknesses of the sector, but it also does not allow anyone to state with certainty that the industry has lost its chance for further development.
Key Takeaways from the Article
| Topic | Critics’ View | Market Context |
|---|---|---|
| Fundamental Value of Cryptocurrencies | In their view, digital assets do not have sustainable practical utility outside of speculation. | The market still largely depends on expectations, narrative, and participant demand. |
| Trump’s Role | Even active political support cannot stop the sector’s decline. | Political support can influence sentiment, but it does not always determine the market’s long-term trajectory. |
| Regulation | The problem is not only regulation, but the crypto market model itself. | Even in a softer environment, the market still faces volatility and confidence crises. |
| Current State of BTC | The decline from the all-time high is viewed as a sign of systemic weakness. | Deep corrections have historically not been unusual for Bitcoin. |
| “Crypto Is Dead” Forecast | The critics believe the market is heading toward a near-term collapse. | Bitcoin has been declared “dead” hundreds of times, yet the market has continued to exist and adapt. |
Conclusion
The current criticism from former Biden economic advisers reflects not only skepticism toward individual coins, but also a broader debate over whether cryptocurrencies have any real fundamental support beyond speculative demand. Their position is extremely harsh: in their view, even with favorable political rhetoric, the market remains vulnerable and lacks internal resilience.
At the same time, the crypto market has already gone through similar waves of criticism and repeated predictions of its demise more than once. That is why any claims about the sector’s “final collapse” should be treated with caution. Cryptocurrencies remain a high-risk and controversial sector, but history shows that premature declarations of this market’s death happen regularly.
This material is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or any other form of recommendation. Investing in crypto assets and trading them involves the risk of financial loss.