By cryptoadmin 
Bitcoin’s credibility came under fire after former U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson labeled the cryptocurrency a Ponzi scheme, prompting Strategy’s Michael Saylor to fire back and defend bitcoin’s decentralized design.
Michael Saylor Pushes Back as Boris Johnson Triggers New Bitcoin Legitimacy Debate
Debate over bitcoin intensified after former U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson criticized the cryptocurrency while Strategy Executive Chairman Michael Saylor responded on social media platform X on March 13. The exchange followed the publication of Johnson’s column discussing risks associated with digital assets and alleged scams tied to crypto investments.
Johnson wrote on X:
“I’ve long suspected bitcoin is a giant Ponzi scheme and now I’m hearing tales of woe that make me fear I’m right.”
The former British leader linked the post to a Daily Mail column published March 13 in which he questioned bitcoin’s underlying value and warned that growing reports of financial losses could weaken confidence in the cryptocurrency sector. Johnson argued that cryptocurrencies depend heavily on investor belief rather than traditional backing and suggested that repeated stories of scams could erode that confidence over time.
Responding on the same platform, Strategy Executive Chairman Michael Saylor argued that bitcoin does not meet the definition of a Ponzi scheme because such schemes require a central organizer who promises returns and pays early participants with funds from new investors. Saylor explained that bitcoin operates without a central issuer, promoter, or guaranteed returns, describing the system as a decentralized monetary network governed by open-source code and market demand rather than centralized management.
Others also challenged Johnson’s characterization. Kwasi Kwarteng, former U.K. Chancellor and co-founder of Stack Bitcoin Treasury, replied directly to Johnson on X, disputing the comparison between bitcoin and a Ponzi scheme. Kwarteng wrote: “Calling Bitcoin a Ponzi is like calling the internet a pyramid scheme because websites gain users over time. A Ponzi has a central operator and promised returns. Bitcoin has neither; just mathematics, code, and a monetary policy that can’t be rewritten by politicians. We’ll chat about this over lunch next week and I’ll have you converted in no time at all.”
Separately, regulators and prosecutors have repeatedly distinguished between cryptocurrency networks and fraudulent investment schemes that claim to trade or use them. Such schemes typically involve centralized operators promising fixed returns while misappropriating investor funds. For example, in February 2026, U.S. prosecutors said a $200 million crypto investment program run by Praetorian Group International was a Ponzi scheme because it promised fixed returns and used new investor funds to pay earlier participants.
Elsewhere in the column, Johnson described an acquaintance from his village whom he characterized as a former businessman and regular churchgoer who approached him for financial help after suffering losses linked to a purported crypto investment scheme. According to him, the man had initially been persuaded in a pub to hand over £500 with the promise that his money would quickly double.
Instead, Johnson wrote that the situation became a prolonged ordeal lasting about three and a half years, during which the individual paid multiple additional fees while attempting to recover funds that had allegedly disappeared online. By the time Johnson spoke with him again, the man had lost roughly £20,000 and was struggling to cover his bills. Johnson concluded the column with a broader warning about confidence in cryptocurrencies, writing:
“Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps these computer-generated currencies will keep going up and up in value. But that depends entirely on confidence – and I am starting to hear so many tales of shattered confidence that I reckon in ten years’ time an investment in Pokemon cards will look like a much better long-term bet.”