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 Cover-up: IAF Narrative of the May 2025 Air Battle

Even after one year since the India-Pakistan May war of 2025, the Indian discourse regarding Operation Sindoor remains uncertain under its pretence of restraint. The Pahalgam attack on 22 April, which killed 26 people, triggered an escalatory spiral. New Delhi quickly accused Pakistan-linked elements, while Islamabad refuted the allegation and demanded an independent investigation. On 7 May, India launched attacks deep inside Pakistan under what it later termed as Operation Sindoor. The political motive was intended to turn the crisis into coercive signalling by shifting the blame onto the enemy and projecting a sense of military superiority.
This episode, however, began to fray immediately as war seldom follows the intended script. Within minutes PAF shot down 7 IAF aircraft including 4 Rafales. On 8 May, Reuters reported that at least two Indian aircraft were shot down by a Pakistani J-10C, while the local government sources reported other aircraft crashes in Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir

Read More »

Why the IAF’s Post-Sindoor Spending Surge is a Sign of Panic

After Operation Sindoor, India is spending billions of dollars on new weapons. This is being taken by many people as an indication of military prowess. It is not. This rush to procure weapons is in fact an acknowledgement that the Air Force in India had failed to do what it was meant to do. The costly jets and missiles that India had purchased over the years failed to yield the promised results.

Sindoor was soon followed by India in sealing the gaps which the operation had exposed. It was reported that Indian Air Force (IAF) is looking to speed up its purchases of more than 7 billion USD. This will involve other Rafale fighter jets with India already ordering 26 more Rafales to the Navy in 2024 at an estimated cost of about 3.9 billion USD. India is also seeking long-range standoff missiles, Israeli loitering munitions and increased drone capabilities. Special financial powers of the Indian military were activated to issue emergency procurement orders. The magnitude and rate of these purchases speak volumes.

Indian media and defence analysts have over the years considered the Rafale as a game changer. When India purchased 36 Rafales aircrafts at an approximate cost of 8.7 billion USD, analysts vowed that the aircraft would provide India with air superiority over Pakistan. Operation Sindoor disproved all those allegations. Indian aircraft did not even fly in Pakistani airspace when the fighting started. India solely depended on standoff weapons that were launched at a safe distance. The air defence system of Pakistan, comprising of the HQ-9 surface-to-air missile system and its own fighters, stood its ground.

Read More »

May 2025: Mosaic Warfare and the Myth of Centralised Air Power

Visualise a modern-day Air Force commander sitting in the operations room, miles away from the combat zone, overseeing every friendly and enemy aircraft and all assets involved in the campaign. In a split second, he can task a fighter, reposition a drone, and authorise a strike. In today’s promising technological era, he does not even need an operations room; a laptop on his desktop will suffice. The situation looks promising as it offers efficiency, precision, and control. The term used for such operational control is ‘centralisation’, which has been made possible with advanced networking, integrating space, cyber, surveillance, artificial intelligence, and seamless communication, enabling a single commander to manage an entire campaign from a single node. Centralised command and control, championed by the Western air forces and then adopted by many others, has thus been seen as a pinnacle of modern military power.
The concept of centralisation, enabled by state-of-the-art networking, may seem promising, but it is nothing more than a myth.

Read More »