Recent remarks from prominent tech entrepreneur Jack Dorsey have reignited a longstanding debate within the cryptocurrency community: Is Bitcoin simply a part of the broader crypto ecosystem, or does it stand apart as a unique form of digital money? Dorsey’s assertion that “Bitcoin is not crypto” emphasizes its distinct characteristics, rooted in its origins, design, and regulatory approach. This perspective urges a reevaluation of how Bitcoin is classified and understood amidst rapidly evolving blockchain innovations.
- Jack Dorsey asserts that Bitcoin should be regarded as money, not part of the broader crypto market.
- Bitcoin’s fixed supply and conservative governance distinguish it from other cryptocurrencies and DeFi tokens.
- Its proof-of-work model prioritizes security and stability, contrasting with more flexible proof-of-stake networks.
- Market infrastructure now treats Bitcoin as a separate asset class, with mainstream adoption including ETFs and institutional trading.
- Bitcoin’s unique design influences its role in the evolving landscape of cryptocurrency and blockchain technology.
Bitcoin is not “crypto”
An X post from Jack Dorsey on Oct. 19, 2025, has stirred discussions by stating simply, “bitcoin is not crypto.” The tweet echoes his longstanding view that Bitcoin deserves recognition as a form of money—something with its own rules and historical significance—rather than being lumped into the general category of tokens and digital assets. Dorsey underscores Bitcoin’s design, governance, and regulatory framework as key factors setting it apart from the diverse world of crypto assets.
Dorsey notes that Bitcoin (BTC) was created without a premined foundation and with conservative governance, making it fundamentally different from smart contract platforms and app tokens that pivot around rapid evolution and broad utility. Unlike many digital assets, Bitcoin’s primary function centers on payments and store of value, not on decentralized applications or complex business logic.
Monetary policy and issuance: Fixed rules vs. flexible policy
Bitcoin’s supply follows a strict, predetermined issuance schedule, which sets it apart from many other networks that treat supply as a tunable feature.
New Bitcoin coins appear as block rewards, halving approximately every 210,000 blocks until the supply caps at 21 million BTC. The latest halving occurred at block 840,000 in April 2024, reducing rewards from 6.25 BTC to 3.125 BTC. As rewards diminish, miners increasingly rely on transaction fees instead of new issuance, supporting network security.
Amending Bitcoin’s fixed issuance would require overwhelming consensus among network participants, making its supply predictable and reinforcing its reputation as a reliable store of value. Conversely, networks like Ethereum implement dynamic supply policies, such as EIP-1559’s fee burn mechanism, which adjusts supply based on demand, fostering flexibility and feature-rich upgrades.
Consensus and security: Proof-of-Work versus Proof-of-Stake
Security models shape how blockchains evolve and scale. Bitcoin employs proof-of-work (PoW), while many others opt for proof-of-stake (PoS).
Bitcoin’s PoW relies on energy-intensive mining where miners use computational power to validate transactions, enforced by a simple scripting language—designed to be conservative and resistant to bugs. Miners’ long-term security budget comes from halving events that shift revenue from coin issuance toward transaction fees, raising questions about sustainability in periods of low activity.
In contrast, PoS networks like Ethereum lock assets (ETH) to validators who propose and attest to blocks, enabling faster upgrades, such as the 2022 Merge. These networks prioritize agility at the expense of Bitcoin’s emphasis on security and minimalism.
Governance and culture: Slow evolution versus rapid iteration
Decentralized governance approaches influence how quickly changes are implemented. Bitcoin evolves slowly, prioritizing consensus and stability, whereas platforms like Ethereum favor rapid development and feature deployment.
Proposals for Bitcoin undergo thorough review through Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs), with changes typically introduced via soft forks, ensuring compatibility. The Taproot upgrade in 2021 exemplifies deliberate, consensus-driven evolution.
Ethereum and similar platforms use on-chain governance processes like EIPs, enabling continuous upgrades—e.g., sharding and data cost reductions—driven by active developer communities. This adaptability supports rapid innovation but introduces operational risks.
It’s estimated that around 2.3 million to 3.7 million BTC are lost forever, further emphasizing Bitcoin’s fixed nature and its reputation as a reliable, scarce asset. Meanwhile, digital assets like NFTs and DeFi projects highlight the differing priorities across blockchain ecosystems.
Layered applications: Payments versus programmability
Bitcoin’s design keeps the base layer simple, with most activity shifting to second-layer solutions like the Lightning Network for fast, low-cost payments.
The Lightning Network utilizes bidirectional channels and Hash Time Locked Contracts (HTLCs) to facilitate off-chain transactions, with settlement anchored on Bitcoin’s main network. This approach preserves its security model while enabling real-world payments.
In contrast, Ethereum supports complex, stateful smart contracts directly on its layer 1, fostering ecosystems around decentralized finance (DeFi), NFTs, and decentralized apps that build on interconnected contracts. Bitcoin experiments at the edges with features like Ordinals and Runes, testing fee-driven security models without altering its core monetary principles.
Market structure and institutional adoption: Bitcoin’s distinct niche
Institutional investors recognize Bitcoin as a separate asset class, with specialized trading and regulatory infrastructure.
In early 2024, the U.S. SEC approved rule changes allowing spot Bitcoin exchange-traded products (ETPs), bringing Bitcoin to mainstream investment platforms like the NYSE, Nasdaq, and Cboe. These developments marked a significant shift, enabling retirement funds and wealth managers to access Bitcoin through traditional financial instruments.
Market data reveals steady inflows into Bitcoin-focused funds, with trading activity reflecting institutional participation. Regulatory clarity positions Bitcoin as a commodity, with agencies like the SEC and CFTC endorsing its role within the traditional financial system.
All these factors reinforce the view that Bitcoin occupies a unique niche—technologically conservative, regulation-friendly, and regarded by markets as a separate digital asset, distinct from the broader crypto ecosystem.
