Bitcoin is not “crypto”
An X post from Jack Dorsey reignited an age-old debate: Is Bitcoin a part of “crypto” or does it stand alone?
On Oct. 19, 2025, Jack Dorsey tweeted three words: “bitcoin is not crypto.” This statement quickly gained traction on the platform and attracted media attention. It underscores his long-held belief that Bitcoin should be seen as a form of money with unique rules and history, separate from the wider token landscape.
Dorsey posits that Bitcoin (BTC) occupies a distinct category. It started without a foundation or premine and is managed conservatively. Designed primarily for payments and savings, it differs from smart contract platforms and app tokens that adapt rapidly and serve diverse purposes.
Let’s break down the argument.
To grasp why he holds this view, it’s essential to examine how Bitcoin’s design, governance, and regulation diverge from the broader crypto ecosystem.
Did you know? El Salvador was the first nation to recognize Bitcoin as legal tender, with legislation enacted on June 9, 2021, effective September 7, 2021.
Monetary policy and issuance: Fixed rules vs. flexible policy
Beginning with supply, Bitcoin’s issuance adheres to a predetermined schedule, while most other networks consider supply as a variable feature.
New coins are generated as block rewards, halving approximately every 210,000 blocks until the total reaches 21 million BTC. The fourth halving took place at block 840,000 in April 2024, lowering the reward from 6.25 BTC to 3.125 BTC. Each halving increases miners’ reliance on transaction fees over new issuance.
Modifying Bitcoin’s issuance would necessitate an overwhelming consensus among node operators, allowing investors to forecast supply years ahead. This predictability is integral to its “store-of-value” appeal.
In contrast, most other networks perceive monetary policy as a design choice. For instance, Ethereum’s Improvement Proposal (EIP) 1559 introduced a base-fee burn that decreases net issuance during high demand, while the Merge transition switched the network to proof-of-stake (PoS), reducing gross issuance. Together, these adjustments foster a supply model that adapts according to network activity.
This flexibility can improve user experience and enable innovative features, whereas Bitcoin’s rigidity aims to maintain monetary credibility.
Consensus and security budgets: PoW minimalism vs. PoS upgrade velocity
The method by which a blockchain secures itself influences all subsequent elements. Bitcoin funds its security through work, while proof-of-stake systems utilize stake.
In Bitcoin, miners expend energy to append blocks, and full nodes enforce a narrow, conservative set of rules. Its scripting language is deliberately simple and not Turing-complete. With fewer components, there are reduced chances for failures, making base-layer changes rare and meticulously controlled.
As the block reward continues to decrease, miner revenue gradually transitions from new coins to transaction fees — Bitcoin’s long-term “security budget.” This raises critical questions about future incentives, especially during low-fee periods. It also emphasizes the significance of activity surges that elevate fees and maintain steady engagement on layers like the Lightning Network for miner economics.
Numerous crypto platforms, primarily Ethereum, employ PoS. Validators stake Ether (ETH), earn rewards for block proposals and validations, and can be penalized for misconduct. This framework has facilitated more rapid upgrades: The Merge in 2022 transitioned to PoS, Shapella (2023) enabled withdrawals, and EIP-4844 (2024) lowered data costs for rollups.
Bitcoin prioritizes security, stability, and minimal modifications at its base layer, whereas most PoS networks focus on swifter upgrades and increased throughput.
Did you know? In 2010, a bug temporarily generated 184 billion BTC before the chain was reverted in a 53-block reorganization. The “value overflow” incident remains Bitcoin’s most significant reorganization. The second largest occurred in 2013 due to software incompatibilities between versions 0.7 and 0.8, spanning 24 blocks.
Governance and culture: “Ossify vs. optimize” in practice
Who modifies the rules, how swiftly and securely? Bitcoin progresses slowly by design, while application-oriented chains focus on speed and adaptability.
Changes in Bitcoin occur deliberately and gradually. Proposals initially surface as Bitcoin Improvement Proposals, are subjected to public discourse, and move forward only when developers, miners, and node operators broadly indicate support. There is no on-chain voting or foundation directing decisions. Upgrades are generally implemented as soft forks, maintaining compatibility with older nodes.
The Taproot upgrade utilized the “Speedy Trial” signaling mechanism in 2021, achieving lock-in in June and activation at block 709,632 on November 14, 2021. This extended process allowed developers, miners, and node operators ample time to synchronize and mitigate activation risks. This approach (characterized by few changes and extensive deliberation) exemplifies what people refer to as Bitcoin “ossifying.”
In contrast, smart contract platforms adopt a different method. Ethereum introduces modifications through the EIP process, adhering to a consistent release cycle — e.g., post-Merge withdrawals and proto-danksharding to reduce data costs.
Different objectives yield different rhythms: Bitcoin safeguards monetary credibility through cautious revisions, while application-focused chains prioritize delivering new features and keeping developer activity high.
Did you know?A significant amount of BTC may be permanently lost. Estimates based on Chainalysis suggest that approximately 2.3 million to 3.7 million BTC is irretrievably lost — a double-digit percentage of the 21 million supply cap.
What runs on top: Payments vs. general-purpose apps
Bitcoin maintains a streamlined base layer: unspent transaction output (UTXO) accounting, a limited stack-based script (deliberately not Turing-complete), and relatively simple logic beyond that.
Much of Bitcoin’s transactional activity is shifting to second-layer networks like the Lightning Network. It employs bidirectional channels and Hash Time Locked Contracts (HTLCs) to facilitate instant, low-cost payments without altering base-layer rules. Daily transactions are conducted offchain, while settlement remains anchored to the primary network.
Smart contract platforms, conversely, adopt an opposing strategy. Ethereum facilitates complex, stateful contracts on its layer 1 and promotes composability — decentralized finance (DeFi), non-fungible tokens (NFTs), and on-chain games building upon one another. This methodology fosters quicker experimentation yet relies on a flexible, regularly upgraded base layer.
Bitcoin continues to explore at the periphery. The introduction of Ordinals and Runes around the 2024 halving spiked fees to unprecedented levels, enhancing miner revenue and serving as a real-world test of fee-driven security. Importantly, none of this altered Bitcoin’s monetary principles or its minimalist layer-1 design. The approach remains consistent: keep the base stable and allow new activities to flourish above or alongside.
Market structure and what it means: BTC’s separate bucket
Exchange-traded funds (ETFs), options, and flow data indicate that institutions differentiate Bitcoin from the broader crypto market.
On January 10, 2024, the US Securities and Exchange Commission approved changes allowing exchanges to list and trade spot Bitcoin exchange-traded products (ETPs). This decision integrated BTC into mainstream venues like the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) Arca, Nasdaq, and the Chicago Board Options Exchange (Cboe).
These platforms are the same ones utilized by brokerages, registered investment advisors (RIAs), and pension funds. Regardless of nomenclature, retirement and wealth management platforms now provide a specific pathway for Bitcoin.
The market infrastructure expanded from that point. By late 2024, US regulators had approved options on spot Bitcoin ETFs, and Cboe launched index options tied to those funds. In essence, it’s about risk transfer and price discovery using tools familiar to institutions — a feature most tokens still lack.
The flow data illustrated this evolution. Throughout 2024 and 2025, the creation and redemption of new funds became a regular occurrence, with dashboards monitoring assets and net flows. Investors gained Bitcoin exposure through traditional wrappers rather than crypto-native platforms.
Policy indicators align with this narrative. US derivatives regulators have consistently classified Bitcoin as a commodity. In 2025, staff from the US SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission acknowledged that registered exchanges could facilitate trading in specific spot commodity crypto products.
Collectively, the distribution avenues, hedging instruments, flow reporting, and regulatory classifications support Jack’s assertion that “bitcoin is not crypto.” Markets have already categorized it distinctly.
