Crypto - Dr Usman - Article thematic Image - Nov copy

I have been writing about cryptocurrencies for more than a half-decade now, whether in peer-review articles, book chapters, or in my own books, and in that time, the crux of my interest has lain in the (1) the regulation and oversight, (2) the philosophy, and (3) social consequences of  cryptocurrencies. My incessant caution has been on the mismatch between the promise and the reality, and the dire consequences that ordinary folks, the small-time retail investors, face when the mismatch grows too large.

The promise of the original cryptocurrency was steeped in the philosophy of anarchism, specifically cryptoanarchism, which seeks to liberate the individual from the shackles of state power to operate freely in the digital realm. Given the sheer inequality, mismanagement, and corruption of the global economy, there is a very strong yearning for a different system, one based on freedom and justice towards a common prosperity. Steeped in an anarchist worldview (“without masters”), cryptocurrencies offered an alternate path based on decentralization, trustlessness (no need to know or trust), and immutability (forever retained), that many around the world embraced feverishly.

Yet the problem that cryptoanarchism has faced is the same one that anarchism more broadly has faced: it demands the impossible, which is to say, it asks for people to work independently but with compassion towards one another’s mutual aid. Wherever anarchism has flourished, there have been forces that have strived to corrupt it, not least the tyrannical state itself. Moreover, those getting into cryptocurrencies have generally not been of an anarchist persuasion. Rather, their mindset has been entirely capitalist; and the worst, get-rich-quick kind. The youth sees cryptocurrencies as the easy ticket out of a mundane life, and the quickest path to driving the Lamborghinis peddled by the influencer false prophets of TikTok and YouTube.

Playing upon this greed, and seeking to operate outside of the realm of standard financial regulation, cryptocurrencies have been bombarded with deviant scams and frauds at every turn. The problem lies not in the technology of cryptocurrency, which is uniquely structured, but in the interface between this anarchist technology and the capitalist bazaar of cryptoexchanges. Cryptoexchanges are the places where cryptocurrencies can be stored or sold. They are ruthless bazaars without ethical qualms, and they operate in a parallel world outside the realms of traditional finance. As I had warned on many occasions in my writings, these exchanges are where the worst fallout would be.

Sadly, this foreboding came true in November 2022, when one of the largest exchanges in the world, FTX, lost $32 billion dollars of customer and investor money through fraud and deceit, by toying with the deposits of customers for its own trading agenda. Its founder, Sam Bankman-Fried, has been a false prophet who had touted notions such as “effective altruism” and other hogwash to the masses through mindless influencers, and ought mansions and other properties, while donating to Biden’s campaign as the one of the largest contributors.

Bankman-Fried built an empire of smoke and mirrors, and built an edifice upon the letter of cryptocurrencies, but without embodying any of its spirit. The cryptoexchange he ran (in a rather clumsy manner) became a Wild West bazaar whose now shattered pieces are being looked at with hostility by customers, regulators, investors, and prosecutors. In the process, cryptocurrencies themselves have been dealt a harsh blow in tarnished reputations. The victims of fraud are now harping on about regulations, even though these were the same people who invested in a space outside of traditional regulation. It is very easy to abuse and disparage the regulators when times are good, but when times are bad, it is the same regulators who are beseeched for mercy and intervention.

Therefore, cryptocurrency today stands at a crossroads. As capitalism itself is being roiled by the post-pandemic crisis, cryptocurrencies too must face a certain music, and the paths forward will depend on how societies and their authorities. The strongest dismissal has been that by China, which has rejected cryptocurrencies and is instead building its own system of the Digital Yuan, under the purview of its own institutions. Other countries are beginning their own reassessment of digital currencies in light of Bankman-Fried’s disastrous fraud, and the general regulatory line will be much more stringent.

Yet the original promise of cryptocurrencies, like anarchism itself, looms large in the financial-ideological ether, despite the capitalist usurpation of its ambitions. It is not as if mainstream capitalism is doing particularly well, with the Federal Reserve thoroughly mismanaging the post-pandemic recovery, not to mention the constant money laundering and corruption of large Western banks and non-bank financial institutions. But to realize the promise of a better financial system, one must not simply smash the existing idols; one must also demolish the false prophets who erect new idols in their stead.

Dr. Usman W. Chohan is the Director for Economic Affairs and National Development at the Centre for Aerospace and Security Studies (CASS), Islamabad, Pakistan. He can be reached at [email protected].


Share this article

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn

Recent Publications

Browse through the list of recent publications.

The US-Israel War on Iran: Objectives, Strategy, and Escalation Management

Zahra Niazi
‘States tend to overestimate themselves or the benefits and swiftness of war, and to underestimate their opponents’ capabilities, intentions, or the costs and duration of war.’ If anything, the 2026 war initiated by the United States and Israel against Iran shall be remembered in the annals of warfare among the most visible manifestations of this dynamic.
The war, immediately preceded by the January mass protests in Iran, did not represent a sudden rupture but rather the continuation of a 47-year-long confrontation and a more intense phase of the June 2025 war.
The US Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, defined the war’s objectives as being laser-focused: to destroy Iran’s missile capabilities and its security infrastructure, while ensuring that it could never develop nuclear weapons. Beyond these stated objectives, among the priorities on the continuum also lay the objective of regime change, with both President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu explicitly calling on the Iranian population to take over the government at the outset of the war.

Read More »

Marka-e-Haq to the Peace Talks: Pakistan’s Middle Power Status

On 7th May 2025, Pakistan’s military forces took the international security community by surprise when it demonstrated operational superiority against its larger belligerent adversary India with its rapid and coordinated response. The Four-Day conflict proved to be a watershed moment for Pakistan, marking its rapid emergence as an important player in the region. In recent years, amidst the ongoing global competition between the United States and China, Islamabad has adopted a position of ’Strategic Balancing,’ where it maintains ties of cooperation with both Beijing and Washington. Deft diplomacy, emphasis on geo-economics, and credible conventional and strategic deterrence have remained the foundational pillars for Pakistan’s ambition as a rising middle power

Read More »

Debunking the S-400 Shield: Lessons from the India-Pakistan Conflict

Air defense has always been a central aspect of warfare. In South Asia, the phenomenon carries immense significance due to compressed reaction times. In this context, one of the most-hyped systems is the Russian-made S-400, touted by New Delhi as a one-stop solution to counter aerial threats from both Pakistan and China.
The 2025 conflict between India and Pakistan marked an important chapter in testing the S-400 technology. The conflict began on May 7, when India attacked what it alleged were terrorist targets in both Pakistani-held Kashmir and Pakistan proper, using drone and missile strikes. The conflict lasted for four days, culminating in a U.S-facilitated ceasefire. However, the brief conflict debunked a lot of the myths regarding the S-400 technology.
First, India claimed that the mobile S-400 would be able to control Pakistan’s airspace. In contrast, Pakistani aircraft continued to operate freely, according to official briefings by the Pakistani military. Although the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) aircraft were in their own airspace, they were still within the air defense range.

Read More »