Bitcoin Value Debate Reignites as Price Dips Below $90K

The latest flare-up in the perennial debate over Bitcoin’s fundamental worth was ignited by Johns Hopkins University professor and frequent crypto critic Steve Hanke. During a volatile trading session that saw Bitcoin’s price dip toward the mid-$80,000 range—a two-week low—Hanke took to social media platform X to declare, “BITCOIN = A HIGHLY SPECULATIVE ASSET WITH ZERO FUNDAMENTAL VALUE.” His comment landed as the digital asset continued to underperform its late-November highs near $100,000, with a 3.4% drop over 24 hours at the time of the report. The sell-off was not isolated to Bitcoin; Ethereum slipped below $3,000, and major altcoins like XRP, Solana (SOL), and Cardano (ADA) also posted short-term losses.

The market strain was amplified by leveraged positions, with data from CryptoPotato reporting $210 million in liquidations within a single hour. This context provided fresh ammunition for skeptics like Hanke, who frame such volatility as evidence of a speculative bubble devoid of underlying economic value. The episode underscores how sharp price drawdowns consistently provide traditional economists with new talking points to challenge the cryptocurrency’s legitimacy.

The response from within the crypto community was swift and pointed. On-chain analyst Axel Adler Jr. labeled Hanke’s assessment “absolutely incorrect,” arguing that the current price action represents a natural correction following years of growth. Adler framed the bigger picture, suggesting Bitcoin is in transition “into a key element of the global financial system.” This defense shifts the focus from short-term price fluctuations to long-term adoption and function.

Other commentators expanded the debate to first principles of money and trust. A trader using the handle Carpe_Diem directly challenged the notion of “fundamental value” by comparing Bitcoin to fiat currency. They posted a chart illustrating the U.S. dollar’s 86% loss in purchasing power since 1972, asking rhetorically, “Oh. You mean, like that fiat currency we call the US Dollar?” This argument posits that value is a social construct and that Bitcoin’s censorship-resistant, decentralized network offers a compelling alternative to state-controlled money.

Further pushback came from commentators like Daniel Tschinkel and analysts cited by Swan Bitcoin. They argued that focusing solely on price ignores Bitcoin’s utility as a global payment network and its resistance to control. Swan Bitcoin quoted analyst Checkmate, noting that more than $1 trillion in capital has flowed into Bitcoin as a store of savings, a market value that itself challenges the “zero value” claim. For proponents, this capital allocation represents a fundamental vote of confidence in Bitcoin’s properties as digital gold.

Beyond the price debate, intriguing on-chain data emerged. Between December 9 and 14, Bitcoin’s estimated hashrate—a measure of the total computational power securing the network—experienced a series of sharp daily drops, totaling declines of up to 12.8%. This coincided with the price weakness and sparked speculation in the press about possible mining shutdowns, potentially in China. However, Axel Adler Jr. cautioned that network metrics alone cannot confirm such explanations, highlighting the complexity of interpreting on-chain signals during volatile periods.

The broader macroeconomic landscape adds another layer to the valuation debate. Skeptics point to tightening financial conditions and fragile technical levels as ongoing risks. Some analysts warn that delayed interest rate cuts from the U.S. Federal Reserve could maintain pressure on risk assets like Bitcoin well into early 2026, opening the door to bearish scenarios that could push BTC prices significantly lower before any sustained recovery. This perspective ties Bitcoin’s fate directly to traditional monetary policy, a linkage that its most ardent supporters reject.

Ultimately, the clash sparked by Steve Hanke’s comments is a microcosm of a larger, unresolved tension. On one side stands traditional economic theory, which struggles to quantify the value of a decentralized, non-sovereign digital asset. On the other is the market reality of Bitcoin’s trillion-dollar capitalization, its growing institutional adoption, and its proponents’ vision of a new financial paradigm. As long as sharp price movements continue, this fundamental debate over what gives an asset value—be it government decree, network utility, or collective belief—shows no sign of fading.