Boris Johnson’s characterization of Bitcoin as a ‘Ponzi scheme’ prompts responses from Michael Saylor and others.

The cryptocurrency community reacted critically, with Michael Saylor asserting that Bitcoin lacks an issuer, promoter, or guaranteed returns, instead being governed by code and market demand.

Michae Saylor (Jason Koerner/Getty Images)

What to know:

• Former U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson labeled Bitcoin a "giant Ponzi scheme" in a column, questioning the credibility of a system established by a pseudonymous individual.
• The cryptocurrency community countered Johnson’s assertions, with Michael Saylor stating that Bitcoin is devoid of an issuer, promoter, or assured return, representing a decentralized monetary network powered by code and market demand.
• Others on social media supported Bitcoin, highlighting its fixed supply, publicly accessible open-source code, and lack of a central authority, thereby arguing that it does not fit the criteria of a Ponzi scheme.

Former U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has referred to bitcoin BTC$70,650.12 a “giant Ponzi scheme,” which led to a prompt response from Strategy chairman Michael Saylor and other users online.

In a column released in the Daily Mail and shared on social media platform X, Johnson expressed that he has long suspected cryptocurrencies depend on “a supply of new and gullible investors” rather than intrinsic value. He referenced an incident from his village in Oxfordshire involving a retired man who gave £500 ($661) to someone in a pub who assured him of doubling the amount through bitcoin.

According to Johnson’s narrative, the individual spent three and a half years incurring fees and attempting to withdraw funds. Ultimately, he lost around £20,000 ($26,450), referring to the experience as “some type of scam.”

Johnson maintained that assets such as gold or even collectibles like Pokémon cards possess some cultural or tangible value. In contrast, he described Bitcoin as “merely a series of numbers stored in a collection of computers.”

He also raised doubts about why individuals should place trust in a system devised by a pseudonymous figure, Satoshi Nakamoto, without institutional support.

“Who do we approach if they decrypt the crypto?” Johnson questioned. “There’s no one besides this Nakamoto, who may be as fictional as Pikachu or Charmander themselves.”

Community push back

In response to the column, the cryptocurrency community challenged Johnson’s assertions.

Saylor, Executive Chairman of the world’s largest corporate bitcoin holder Strategy (MSTR), dismissed the claims, stating that a Ponzi scheme necessitates a “central operator promising returns and compensating early investors with funds from later ones.”

Bitcoin, Saylor clarified, has “no issuer, no promoter, and no guaranteed return—just an open, decentralized monetary network driven by code and market demand.”

Bitcoin is not a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi requires a central operator promising returns and paying early investors with funds from later ones. Bitcoin has no issuer, no promoter, and no guaranteed return—just an open, decentralized monetary network driven by code and market demand.

— Michael Saylor (@saylor) March 13, 2026

On X, within the “community notes program,” a note was added indicating that Ponzi schemes promise artificially high rates of returns with minimal risk.

“Bitcoin has no issuer and its value is solely determined by the free market. The code is entirely public and voluntary. Nobody can compel you to operate any specific version,” the note states.

Responses varied from technical discussions regarding Bitcoin’s structure to more extensive critiques of governmental monetary policy.

Responses included technical details about Bitcoin’s design alongside broader critiques of government monetary policies. Some users highlighted Bitcoin’s capped supply and decentralized framework as evidence of its distinction from traditional Ponzi schemes.

Others adopted a more confrontational approach, sharing memes and condemning central banks for increasing the money supply during the pandemic. In terms of authority, BitMEX Research responded, “nobody is in charge.”