The adoption of superior technologies like cryptocurrency is often hindered by the entrenched power of incumbents like banks and regulators. The ultimate victory for crypto may not come from winning arguments, but from a generational shift as older, resistant leaders pass away.
Related Insights
Maja Vujinovic posits that Gary Gensler, despite his pro-crypto past, was strategically positioned by banks to slow innovation. This regulatory friction gave traditional financial institutions the necessary time to understand the technology and formulate their own digital asset strategies before competing.
Boomers control traditional, low-volatility assets (housing, stocks, bonds), making it impossible for younger generations to catch up via conventional means. High-volatility frontier assets like crypto represent the only viable path to meaningful wealth creation, transforming crypto into a critical political issue for attracting younger voters.
The industry is transitioning from adolescence to early adulthood. It's gaining serious attention from financial institutions ('the adults') but still faces significant development and regulatory challenges before reaching full maturity, much like a teenager on the cusp of legal adulthood.
Unlike assets like commodities or private markets where institutions pioneer adoption, cryptocurrencies saw retail investors lead the charge. Institutions are only now slowly beginning to explore allocations, reversing the historical trend of top-down financial innovation.
A consistent pattern shows innovators adopting the models of legacy players they displaced. YouTube creating cable-like bundles, Coinbase mirroring traditional banks, and Facebook becoming new media illustrates a natural lifecycle where disruptors eventually converge with the industries they set out to revolutionize.
Unlike past crypto cycles characterized by widespread retail hype, the current market's energy comes from institutional adoption. Traditional financial firms are moving beyond pilots and using crypto rails in production. This shift signifies a more mature, robust, and potentially more sustainable phase for the industry.
A dominant system, like the Soviet Union, doesn't simply die; it collapses when its people can envision and transition to a viable alternative (e.g., the US model). The current US-led order faces multiple potential successors—crypto, China's centralized model—which accelerates its potential decline.
The suspicious death of an MIT fusion researcher echoes historical patterns, like Nikola Tesla's suppression, where breakthrough technologies threatening established industries (e.g., energy) face violent opposition from powerful incumbents like 'Big Oil'.
Elon Musk reportedly stopped focusing on radical life extension because he believes people don't change their minds. He argues that scientific and social progress occurs "one death at a time," as older generations with ossified views must pass away to make room for new ideas.
In past cycles, corporate interest in crypto was reactive to retail frenzy and often insincere. This time, financial institutions are building lasting tech and defining clear business cases, such as cost reduction and new product offerings, signaling a fundamental shift toward sustainable integration.