Bitcoin's "midlife crisis": How veteran Cryptos win the favor of Generation Z?

Written by: Christina Comben

Compiled by: Saoirse, Foresight News

At the dawn of Bitcoin, it was just an inconspicuous “niche thing.” It was neither an innovative product created by Silicon Valley nor the result of research by central banks from various countries. Instead, Bitcoin emerged in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, perfectly timed and inherently disruptive.

The mysterious figure Satoshi Nakamoto published a white paper on the cypherpunk mailing list, proposing the creation of a peer-to-peer payment network that could bypass the operational mechanisms with loopholes in the financial system after 2008.

At that time, Bitcoin was a “counter currency”, a tool for directly resisting bailout plans, bank bankruptcies, and central planning. Early holders saw themselves as “digital rebels”, building infrastructure for a brand new “freedom currency” – it is uncensored, has no borders, and is not bound by the whims of officials or the failures of outdated institutions. On January 17, 2009, Satoshi Nakamoto once posted that:

“Perhaps it's better to buy some Bitcoin just in case it really becomes popular. If enough people think this way, then it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

From “Rebel Pioneer” to “Institutional Darling”

In 15 years, Bitcoin has evolved from an obscure technical white paper into a global currency network valued at over $2 trillion. The once unattainable “regulatory recognition” has finally seen the light of day: it started with cautious probing by regulators and later became official recognition making headlines. On the anniversary of Bitcoin's birth, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant commented:

“Seventeen years after the release of the white paper, the Bitcoin network is still operating stably and is more resilient than ever before. Bitcoin will never 'go down'.”

From the listing of spot ETFs and Wall Street investing billions of dollars, to the U.S. government passing related bills and publicly traded companies including Bitcoin on their balance sheets — each milestone achieved seems to signify that this “pioneering rebel” has conquered one peak after another.

But alongside “legitimacy” comes a more insidious and slowly fermenting threat: “relevance.” The vitality of a technology that can shake the world entirely depends on whether the “narrative” it carries can resonate. And the younger generation is evidently not buying into the narrative of Bitcoin.

The “death notice” of Bitcoin is piling up.

Writing a “death notice” for Bitcoin has long become a tedious routine (you could even say it’s an “industry”). Whether it’s the ambiguity of early code, the disastrous hacking of the Mt. Gox exchange, China’s mining ban, the harsh crackdown by regulators, or the potential threat posed by quantum computing, headlines claiming “Bitcoin is dead” have surpassed 450 to date.

Warren Buffett, the “Oracle of Omaha,” once called Bitcoin “worse than rat poison”; JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon mocked:

“I have always been completely opposed to cryptocurrencies and things like Bitcoin. Their only real use is to facilitate money laundering and tax evasion for criminals and drug dealers… If I were the government, I would ban it outright.”

However, each crisis seems to strengthen Bitcoin's “immunity.” Whether facing regulatory panic, security incidents, or the bear market winter, the Bitcoin network continues to operate, with blocks being generated continuously, giving rise to a new narrative: Bitcoin is “unstoppable.”

This belief has permeated all levels, and even Russian President Vladimir Putin has publicly stated:

“Bitcoin, who can ban it? No one can. Who can also ban the use of other electronic payment tools? Likewise, no one can - because these are all new technologies.”

In fact, for the millennials of the digital age, Bitcoin has long been regarded as the “spiritual successor” to gold: it is highly resilient, and can almost be considered “immortal” (if “survival” is regarded as an advantage).

But as Jameson Lopp, the Chief Security Officer of the cryptocurrency security company Casa and a Bitcoin security expert, previously told CryptoSlate: the biggest threat to Bitcoin is not technological breakthroughs or regulatory battles. By 2025, the real threat is “apathy” — there are too few young people willing to pay attention to it.

Generation Z: No money, and no Bitcoin

The “Z Generation” (Zoomers) is a generation born alongside the iPhone and Instagram, growing up watching YouTube and TikTok. They are entering adulthood in the weary atmosphere of “late capitalism” and are rewriting the rules of the economy.

Ordinary Generation Z graduates are facing the predicament of stagnant salaries, hopelessness in buying houses, disappearing entry-level jobs, and soaring credit card debt. When the boundaries of the “future” only reach the next paycheck, why bother saving value for tomorrow? As Sean Ristau, Vice President of Digital Assets at InvestiFi, said to CryptoSlate:

“Bitcoin was initially a direct challenge to the financial system, a form of protest. Now it resembles 'digital gold', primarily controlled by giants and banks. Such an image does not resonate at all with young people who are facing inflation, debt, and rising living costs.”

No matter how “strong” Bitcoin appears in the market, it carries a suspicious “baby boomer vibe” in the eyes of many Gen Z. The earliest supporters of Bitcoin bear the “battle scars” of the 2008 financial crisis, while Gen Z is only familiar with meme stocks, Robinhood options trading, and tokens like Dogecoin.

ProCap BTC Chief Information Officer and Bitwise advisor Jeff Park warned that the narrative around Bitcoin must change. He believes that Generation Z seeks “meaning” rather than an anti-inflation tool:

“Ultimately, if young people do not embrace Bitcoin, the entire logic of Bitcoin will collapse.”

In a recent episode of the podcast “The Story of Bitcoin,” cryptocurrency advocate American HODL also admitted:

“The lack of interest in Bitcoin among Generation Z is actually a big problem - because they are too 'nihilistic'. We must continue to actively engage with them, try to awaken them, and tell them: 'Bro, for self-preservation and for your own good, it's time to take action while you still can!' Both reasons are very important.”

Political Background: The “Bitcoin Holding War” between the Red Party and the Blue Party

The partisan divide surrounding Bitcoin has never been as sharp as it is now. As the Biden administration intensifies its “Choke Point 2.0” crackdown on cryptocurrency businesses, the Democratic Party's stance has become that “cryptocurrency is harmful, and regulation is essential.”

In contrast, MAGA camp Republicans, the core of the libertarian movement, and some moderate centrists now view support for Bitcoin as a way to “demonstrate fiscal independence and a stance for national revival.”

(Note: MAGA, the abbreviation for “Make America Great Again,” was originally the core slogan proposed by former U.S. President Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign, and later became a symbolic ideological emblem for his supporters, related political movements, and the conservative camp.)

But Generation Z is completely uninterested in this. They flock to online communities where “unity is greater than speculation.” The political narrative of Bitcoin, which was originally about “freedom from government control,” now has to contend with escalating economic anxiety — and the widespread distrust of the U.S. government and all institutions. Park warned:

“Leftist candidates do not support Bitcoin in elections for a reason - not because they fear the 'establishment', but because they believe that supporting Bitcoin would harm their own interests. This is definitely a bad thing. For Bitcoin to succeed, it must become a common platform for 'Bitcoin and Mandani (leftist politicians)', rather than an exclusive tool for 'Bitcoin and Ackman (right-wing capitalists).”

As Trump and more and more Republicans tout Bitcoin as a “patriotic technology,” the left-leaning Generation Z has turned to socialist leaders like Zolan Mandani. In their eyes, Bitcoin has become a “side hustle for libertarians” (even worse), a part of the “conservative establishment.” From any angle, it is no longer the “rebel” that understands street culture.

Why can't the concept of Bitcoin resonate with young people?

The original core proposition of Bitcoin – “breaking free from bank control, anti-inflation savings, and non-seizable digital assets” – fails to stir much enthusiasm among young people. For them, money is less like a “fortress that needs guarding” and more like “points in an infinite game”: always circulating, always changing. As Jamie Elkaleh, the Chief Marketing Officer of Bitget Wallet, said to CryptoSlate:

“The investment culture of Generation Z is faster, more social, and more reliant on Meme dissemination. They are more inclined towards community-driven tokens, AI-related assets, and the creator economy—because these allow them to feel a sense of 'participation' and align with their digital behavior habits. Young users often view Bitcoin as 'an asset for funds and treasuries,' rather than 'a platform they can directly engage with'… While the narrative of Bitcoin as 'digital gold' can bring a sense of security and honor, it lacks 'interactivity' and 'goal-driven vitality'—which are the core demands of this generation's participation in financial activities.”

Ristau added:

“Cryptocurrency ownership is rising rapidly (over half of Gen Z has held digital assets), but the audience for Bitcoin still skews older, wealthier, and predominantly male. Young users are chasing something completely different: meme coins with clear goals, AI-related tokens, and fun, practical, or community-driven social or gaming projects. So, where exactly is the problem?”

Is it a “population structure problem” or a “population structure opportunity”?

Young people under the age of 25 are increasingly disappointed with the world and their own situation. Is there anything strange about this? High inflation, blocked channels for wealth accumulation, and a complete distrust of the institutions that their parents' generation relied on — these are the realities they face.

Ironically, this predicament may spark the next wave of Bitcoin adoption. Grant Cardone, CEO of Cardone Capital, told CryptoSlate:

“Bitcoin does not have a 'youth dilemma' at all. The real issue is not the age of the holders, but rather the mindset. Some tell Generation Z 'to trade meme coins, not to accumulate wealth,' and so they chase quick money instead of long-term assets that can be passed down. Bitcoin is designed for 'those with a long-term vision' — these people understand that 'control, scarcity, and freedom' are the foundation of wealth.”

From this perspective, the so-called “demographic structure problem” of Bitcoin looks more like a “demographic structure opportunity.” A new trend led by a “generation eager for digital ownership” may be on the horizon. As Elkaleh emphasized:

The “youth dilemma” of Bitcoin stems from the widening gap between its “institutional maturity” and “cultural relevance.” The willingness of young investors to hold Bitcoin has not disappeared, but their first touchpoint with cryptocurrency is increasingly “culturally relevant assets” rather than Bitcoin. While institutions and ETFs have enhanced Bitcoin's credibility, they have also shifted its focus away from the “grassroots” and “native online communities.”

Bridging the Gap: How Bitcoin Integrates into Youth Culture?

So, how can Bitcoin break through the current situation of being dominated by older investors and attract creators, gamers, and digital entrepreneurs from Generation Z? The answer lies in “practicality, trust, and cultural integration.” Cardone's viewpoint is straightforward:

“Bitcoin does not need to 'change itself' for Generation Z; rather, Generation Z needs to 'clearly recognize Bitcoin.' But I can tell you that to make Bitcoin more attractive, three things must be done: education, empowerment, and experience.”

Ristau believes that more emphasis should be placed on the “practicality of Bitcoin” and the “growing range of applications globally.” He pointed out:

“Anti-inflation, financial freedom, and reducing global remittance costs - these are all key selling points. In recent years, the volume of cryptocurrency remittances has grown by over 400%. This story should be at the core of the promotion.”

Elkaleh also emphasizes that the narrative of Bitcoin needs to be “refreshed” and must be firmly rooted in “practicality”:

“It is equally important to update the narrative framework. The positioning of 'digital gold' resonates with institutions and long-term investors, but it fails to explain the 'practical value' of Bitcoin for ordinary people. For younger users, Bitcoin's 'relevance' lies in what it can 'achieve'—privacy protection, self-custody, resistance to censorship, and support for socially-oriented transactions. Only by combining these core principles with specific scenarios such as 'cross-border remittances' and 'community donations' can the meaning of Bitcoin transcend 'price volatility' itself.”

The survival threats that Bitcoin faces are more than any digital product. It has endured the pessimism of Wall Street giants and withstood the pressure from regulators. However, the biggest threat it faces may be the “loss of youthful spark” – those rebels, dreamers, and builders who give Bitcoin its soul.

Will Bitcoin eventually become a “museum exhibit” or a “currency that changes the world”? The answer, as always, depends on “how many people are willing to take up its torch.”

Ultimately, the existence of “free currency” depends on whether the narrative can shift from “inherited assets” to “meaningful stories.” Bitcoin should not have been “boring” from the moment of its inception. To sustain its development over the next decade and beyond, it needs “vitality,” not just “value.”