Bitcoin pioneer Amir Taaki isn’t mincing words about the cryptocurrency revolution—or what’s left of it. The early Bitcoin developer and libbitcoin creator believes the movement has strayed dangerously far from its roots. And he’s not happy about it.
“We had a chance to change everything,” Taaki argues, pointing to crypto’s original mission as a decentralized financial revolution outside traditional power structures. Instead, what happened? Mainstream adoption and regulatory compliance. Not exactly the overthrow of financial oppression early advocates imagined.
Taaki’s credentials give his criticisms weight. He contributed to Bitcoin’s core code, developed wallets like Electrum and Darkwallet, and founded Autonomous Polytechnics. He was there when crypto meant revolution, not retirement portfolios.
His critique is brutal but specific. Bitcoin’s core team? Corrupt and inefficient. Ethereum? “Captured” and underwhelming. Privacy coins delisting from exchanges? Pure capitulation. The whole scene has become a sad spectacle of compromise, with price speculation trumping actual innovation.
The problem, according to Taaki, isn’t just technical—it’s ideological. Crypto developers failed to establish a robust independent philosophy, instead getting cozy with the very power structures they once challenged. The early Bitcoin community was characterized by diverse ideological backgrounds, including libertarians, free software advocates, and crypto anarchists who shared optimism about transforming finance. Taaki’s unique builder’s perspective allows him to see how this cozy relationship has undermined crypto’s revolutionary potential. Imagine a revolution that ends with revolutionaries applying for jobs at the palace.
Leadership is another target of Taaki’s ire. He sees Bitcoin core developers creating roadblocks, Ethereum leadership lacking vision, and project governance trending toward the very authoritarianism crypto was supposed to dismantle.
So what now? Taaki calls for a new “regime of truth”—an authentic ideological foundation that could redirect the movement. He wants cultural shifts alongside technical ones, diverse talent recruitment, and systems to develop new leadership.
His comments have ignited fierce debate. Some dismiss him as an idealistic relic. Others see uncomfortable truth in his accusations. Either way, Taaki’s provocation forces an uncomfortable question: Did crypto change the world, or did the world change crypto? Meanwhile, the fundamentals of true decentralization levels among cryptocurrencies continue to vary widely, with some networks demonstrating more democratic structures than others.
