Solana’s co-founder Anatoly Yakovenko sparked a crypto firestorm this week by brazenly dismissing Bitcoin as worthless. In a statement that sent ripples through the crypto community, Yakovenko likened Bitcoin to a coin flip rather than an investment, claiming it has zero intrinsic value.
The Solana founder didn’t stop there. He argued Bitcoin should be viewed solely as insurance against superpower collapse—with an estimated 1% annual chance of such an event occurring. Despite technological advancements in the broader crypto space, he maintains Bitcoin remains limited to its innovation from 15 years ago. His advice? Allocate exactly 1% of your wealth to BTC as a cost, not an investment. Talk about precise math for a doomsday scenario.
Yakovenko’s criticism cut deeper when he claimed Bitcoin hasn’t evolved technologically in 15 years. He insisted BTC’s price is completely irrelevant to its function as collapse insurance, and there’s no guarantee it would even work in such a scenario. Ouch.
Bitcoin tech hasn’t changed in 15 years, and there’s zero guarantee it would actually function when civilization crumbles.
The comparison to other assets was particularly pointed. Yakovenko praised revenue-generating layer-1 blockchains that require gas fees, emphasizing capturable future fees as the true measure of worth. Not-so-subtly implying Solana’s superiority, he called 100% BTC ownership “the worst allocation strategy.” Shocker coming from a competitor, right?
Bitcoin supporters fired back immediately. They highlighted BTC’s role in protecting against counterparty risk and inflation, pointing to its market dominance and institutional adoption. Critics argue that Bitcoin’s value ultimately depends on market sentiment rather than practical utility, making it vulnerable to extreme price fluctuations. The back-and-forth quickly devolved into tribal warfare, with some taking swipes at Solana’s own troubled history of network stability.
The controversy even forced Solana Foundation President to distance herself from Yakovenko’s comments. Smart move.
The clash has reignited fundamental questions about cryptocurrency value propositions: store of value versus utility, long-term sustainability versus innovation. It underscores the philosophical divide between different blockchain approaches.
One thing’s certain—in the crypto world, fighting words travel fast. And nobody holds back when their digital tokens are being trashed. The battle for blockchain supremacy continues, no punches pulled.
