Over the years the crypto industry has acquired a thick crust of manifestos: \u201cmoney without states\u201d, \u201ccode is law\u201d. Such slogans would be unworkable without cryptographic engineering and alternative economic mechanisms.<\/p>\n
ForkLog examined which blockchain technologies retain value without cypherpunk ideology, which rely mainly on community faith, and gathered views from researchers and project representatives.<\/p>\n
Bitcoin appeared in 2008 as a political response to the banking crisis. Later concepts \u2014 Web3<\/a>, DeFi<\/a>, DAO<\/a> \u2014 largely inherited the original idea: decentralisation was seen not only as a technical fix but as an ethical principle.<\/p>\n Over the years the technology has outgrown its initial ideology. Cryptographically protected ledgers are used by JPMorgan, BlackRock, SWIFT and the central banks of Hong Kong, Singapore and the EU. In July 2025 America\u2019s Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) launched Project Crypto<\/a> \u2014 a migration of market infrastructure onto blockchain rails, including tokenisation<\/a> of equities and clearing. None of these players shares cypherpunk ideals.<\/p>\n This suggests the technological foundations of blockchain can exist apart from the political and cultural precepts with which they were first associated.<\/p>\n With BTC, however, the line is harder to draw. Web3 researcher Vladimir Menaskop argues that ideology is embedded in Bitcoin\u2019s very architecture:<\/p>\n \u201cWhat is written in the white paper of the first cryptocurrency? That is the ideology embodied in technology \u2014 if you know how to read between the lines.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The expert noted that Bitcoin\u2019s uniqueness is not only its capped issuance. Every component at its core existed long before the cryptocurrency: the PoW<\/a> algorithm, hash functions, timestamps.<\/p>\n The obvious question follows: what stopped anyone from assembling these elements into a single system earlier? Why did even such eminent specialists as Hal Finney<\/a>, and the whole cypherpunk community, wait for Satoshi Nakamoto?<\/p>\n According to Menaskop, a brilliant technical composition was not enough: Bitcoin also needed a powerful ideological foundation, which the anonymous creator of BTC provided.<\/p>\n A similar view comes from Nikolai Bordunenko, CPO at MetaLamp. In his opinion, separating technology from ideology in Bitcoin is a mistake, and the hard cap of 21m coins is above all a political statement.<\/p>\n \u201cIn the Coinbase message of the genesis block there is a quote from a 2009 The Times headline: \u2018Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks\u2019. This is a direct allusion to the events of those years \u2014 the British government was preparing to pour taxpayer money into failed banks again, and central banks were launching issuance on an unprecedented scale. And it is precisely against this backdrop that an asset appears whose issuance no one can change by fiat,\u201d the expert explained.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Georgy Verbitsky, founder of TYMIO, allows only a partial separation. Fixed issuance, he says, is an engineering decision but also a fundamental ideological choice, reflecting limits on money supply and independence from centralised monetary policy.<\/p>\n Mikhail Pshenichnikov, head of development at Dash, sees it differently. He argues that it is better to separate the technological and ideological components, since the former can exist on its own: fixed issuance is merely one Bitcoin feature, and there are projects that do not follow this rule.<\/p>\n \u201cThe emergence of Bitcoin gave a boost to a new industry united by a common foundation, but now everyone builds their own principles and values,\u201d the expert summed up.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Cryptographic primitives<\/strong><\/p>\n Hash functions, digital signatures<\/a>, zero-knowledge proofs (ZK<\/a>) \u2014 the maths predated Bitcoin. Crypto has become their main proving ground.<\/p>\n Today ZK technologies are used<\/a> beyond digital assets. They are being tested for identity verification without disclosure, authenticity checks for AI content and audits of ML<\/span> models. This layer will persist under any scenario \u2014 it is useful in its own right.<\/p>\n Tokenisation of real assets<\/strong><\/p>\n RWA is among the industry\u2019s fastest-growing segments, not grounded in anarchist values. Big finance is interested mainly for pragmatic reasons: faster settlement, programmability of transactions and lower infrastructure costs.<\/p>\n Settlement networks<\/strong><\/p>\n After the adoption in the US<\/a> of the GENIUS Act, stablecoins<\/a> obtained a clearer regulatory status. Firms like Tether<\/a> and Circle<\/a> have already become important providers of infrastructure for cross-border dollar transfers, especially in underbanked countries.<\/p>\n USDT\u2019s popularity is not about decentralisation but simple efficiency: transfers via stablecoins are often cheaper and faster than traditional payment systems.<\/p>\n According to Andrey Velikiy, co-founder of Allbridge.io, without widespread crypto cards it would be all but impossible to use digital assets in everyday life. He likens Bitcoin to digital gold locked safely in a vault, while actual payments have shifted towards regulated, centralised stablecoins.<\/p>\n Smart contracts as a class of software<\/strong><\/p>\n Automatic execution of conditions without an intermediary is a useful abstraction for escrow, derivatives, subscriptions and royalties. It works in both private and public networks.<\/p>\n \u201cMaximalism\u201d and money-replacement narratives<\/strong><\/p>\n The thesis \u201cBitcoin will replace the dollar\u201d lives in the media, not in financial statements. The market\u2019s flagship behaves like a risk asset correlated with the Nasdaq, not a means of payment \u2014 the share of P2P transactions in its volume is small. This does not negate its role as a store of value, but it weakens scenarios of fully displacing fiat currencies.<\/p>\n Radical decentralisation for its own sake<\/strong><\/p>\n Many projects are formally decentralised but in practice depend on a narrow circle of developers, concentrated staking<\/a> and centralised access interfaces.<\/p>\n Velikiy mentioned the exchange Kraken, which introduced<\/a> compulsory application of the Travel Rule for European accounts to all transactions over \u20ac1000, as well as Tether, blocking<\/a> wallets at the first request of regulators.<\/p>\n \u201cThere is now almost more freedom in the banking system than on centralised exchanges,\u201d Velikiy believes.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Does a structural difference from traditional finance remain? Bordunenko thinks it does. Looking at the concentration of validators, developers and stablecoin issuers, the gap is smaller than is often claimed. One structural distinction endures, however \u2014 permissionless entry. No regulator\u2019s approval is needed to issue a new stablecoin or build a settlement rail.<\/p>\n The expert recalled that when USDT began freezing addresses at the behest of American regulators, the market responded with alternatives and a shift of volumes into networks facing less pressure.<\/p>\n Verbitsky identified openness as the key distinction: in public blockchains the system\u2019s rules, code, architecture and often decision-making processes are available for market scrutiny. That does not eliminate centralisation risks, but it makes them far more visible. In his view, the distributed ledger today forms an intermediate model between classical centralised finance and fully decentralised systems.<\/p>\n Menaskop urged people \u201cnot to mix all blockchains into one flask\u201d \u2014 they differ radically. A validator, he says, can be \u201cif not everyone, then anyone\u201d: not everyone has 32 ETH, but upgrades and pooling are being created, so a figure above a million validators no longer looks frightening. At the same time there are projects like TON<\/a>, where 400 validators is an outlandish figure.<\/p>\n The expert also allowed for the emergence of projects that are hard to distinguish from financial institutions, citing Base<\/a>, XRP Ledger<\/a> and BNB Chain.<\/p>\n Meme coins and \u201cculture\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n Meme coins rely heavily on community attention and media effects. Technically, most are standard tokens without unique infrastructure. That does not make the segment pointless, but it places it closer to digital entertainment and speculative assets than to financial transformation.<\/p>\n Experts\u2019 3\u20135 year allocation forecasts diverge markedly, reflecting market uncertainty. Bordunenko bets on infrastructure and security. Big capital goes where rules are clear: custody of cryptoassets, stablecoins and tokenisation.<\/p>\n He singles out security for huge investment: protection from the quantum threat, audits and remediation of software vulnerabilities. He sees insurance as especially \u201cunder-ripe\u201d \u2014 not all threats can be prevented, but hedging against the loss of billions is quite realistic.<\/p>\n As for the cultural layer \u2014 DAOs, DeSoc<\/a>, everything that reimagines social structures via blockchain \u2014 it is losing scope to attract capital, Bordunenko believes. He sees a chance for serious inflows only in one scenario: a crisis on the scale of 2008. A new wave, he says, could come when people en masse realise they own neither their data, nor digital identity, nor intellectual property. That would require an incident of incredible scale \u2014 a major platform hack, a data leak or serious damage affecting officials as well.<\/p>\n Verbitsky offers a similar forecast, with a geopolitical caveat. In his view, the infrastructure layer will see the largest inflows: blockchain is gradually turning from a purely \u201ccryptocurrency\u201d technology into a universal financial infrastructure. Platforms such as Hyperliquid, he notes, already allow trading not only cryptoassets but also derivatives linked to traditional markets. Should doubts about the resilience of state currencies intensify, the narrative of independent money and \u201chard assets\u201d could return to the fore.<\/p>\n Menaskop sees an asymmetry in funding. Infrastructure gets so much money, he argues, because many analytic firms and venture funds insisted: \u201cIt is almost 100% ready \u2014 just take it and assemble dapps<\/span> like Lego bricks.\u201d They were wrong, and the LayerZero hack<\/a> is the best confirmation. He predicts money will flow not where crypto-enthusiasts would like: into various corporate \u201cblockchains\u201d and the RWA segment. Even so, the ZKP sphere will not stall \u2014 the balance of power will simply shift.<\/p>\n Pshenichnikov emphasises the cultural and consumer segment. Projects with strong communities and marketing support, he observes, traditionally attract more attention and liquidity. This demand pattern does not always align with a project\u2019s technological significance, but it largely determines capital allocation in the industry.<\/p>\n Ideological theses about \u201copen finance\u201d are often stress-tested by hacks and scandals. Menaskop points to a comparative argument: access to open data is itself a breakthrough. \u201cMany shriek that DeFi is hacked at every turn,\u201d he says, yet a single comparison with hacks in banking shows the problem is not DeFi. Traditional institutions keep failures secret for years, and when they surface the sums are in the billions. He calls the \u201chead-in-the-sand\u201d effect the burden of centralised finance \u2014 and a very frightening one.<\/p>\n Bordunenko shares a similar view, but for states rather than users. To some degree, he argues, governments are also interested in decentralisation. After 2022 it again became clear that the dollar can be used as a tool of political influence, and no one knows whose head it will \u201chit\u201d next. A permissionless network turns from ideological whim into a backup plan: those who yesterday pressed on crypto-infrastructure and demanded blockages may turn to it tomorrow \u2014 simply because there will be no other options.<\/p>\n If today\u2019s trends are extrapolated \u2014 regulation in the EU and US, licensing in Hong Kong and the UAE \u2014 a three-layered industry emerges:<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
What endures beyond ideology<\/h2>\n
What rests on ideology<\/h2>\n
\n
Where capital will flow<\/h2>\n
Openness as a practical advantage<\/h2>\n
A de-ideologised scenario: what a mature industry looks like<\/h2>\n