Talk:Cryptocurrency

Untitled

 Forward back

Add mention of TRON’s confirmation speed and USDT dominance to Altcoins section

TRON should be mentioned in the Altcoins section. In addition to being a high-throughput blockchain with ~3-second block times and low fees—comparable to or faster than Litecoin—it has recently overtaken Ethereum in total circulating supply of USDT, which is the most transacted stablecoin. This shift reflects growing adoption of TRON as a settlement layer, presumably due to its lower fees and faster confirmation times relative to Ethereum.

Suggested sentence:

‘‘TRON, a blockchain with 3-second block times and low fees, has become the dominant network for USDT transactions, overtaking Ethereum in total USDT supply in 2025.Allison, Ian (2025-05-14). "Tron Overtakes Ethereum in USDT Circulation". CoinDesk. Retrieved 2025-06-04.’’

Let me know if this should be revised further or if there’s a more appropriate section for it.

Please no Coindesk. Retimuko (talk)

"R/Buttcoin" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect R/Buttcoin has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 27 § R/Buttcoin until a consensus is reached. मल्ल (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Request to add information about the 2014 pure gold physical Bitcoin (verified by Forbes, Cointelegraph, and Finance Magnates).

I propose adding a sentence to the "Physical crypto" section to document the historical existence of pure gold physical bitcoins produced in 2014, as verified by multiple independent sources.

Current text: ...coins made of silver, brass or aluminum sometimes with gold plating, or Titan Bitcoin, which in silver or gold versions are sought after by numismatists.

Proposed addition (in bold): ...coins made of silver, brass or aluminum sometimes with gold plating. **In 2014, unique efforts were made to mint physical bitcoins in pure gold to target the collector market, such as a limited run produced in China reported by Forbes, Cointelegraph, and Finance Magnates.**

Reasoning: The article currently lacks specific mention of "pure gold" (Au 99.9%) minting efforts from 2014. These historical artifacts are distinct from common gold-plated versions and have been thoroughly documented by Forbes, Cointelegraph, and Finance Magnates. Bits86 (talk) 07:49, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

The sources listed are not reliable sources. Forbes is not a reliable secondary source WP:FORBESCON and the primary source is a Chinese blog post.

Also physical crypto in this context doesn't mean gold coins, it means ETP/ETF products exchanged. Sibshops (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per the above response. Day Creature (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

References

Revised request: Adding 2014 Pure Gold Physical Bitcoin with mainstream reliable source

{{request edit}}

Reason regarding previous decline: In a previous request (30 December 2025), editors correctly pointed out that Forbes contributors are not reliable sources and raised a concern about the definition of "physical crypto." I have addressed both points in this revised request:

1. Source Reliability: I have removed all weak sources (Forbes, Cointelegraph). I am now citing People's Daily Online (人民网), the official state media of China, which is a high-quality mainstream source verifying the existence, date, and material of these coins.
2. Context: The previous refusal suggested "physical crypto" refers to ETPs. However, the current existing text of this section explicitly lists "Titan Bitcoin" and coins made of "silver, brass or aluminum." This confirms the section is indeed discussing numismatic physical coins (Casascius-style), not financial instruments. My addition strictly follows this existing context.

Proposed addition: Please add the following sentence to the end of the "Physical crypto" section:

"In 2014, unique efforts were made to mint physical bitcoins in pure gold to target the collector market, such as a limited run produced in China reported by the official media outlet People's Daily.[1]"

References: [1] People's Daily Online (23 July 2014). "Chinese Bitcoin Enthusiasts Create Physical Gold Bitcoins". People's Daily. Retrieved 1 January 2026. http://art.people.com.cn/n/2014/0723/c206244-25328360.html Bits86 (talk) 08:06, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

There isn't really enough WP:WEIGHT to add this to the article. It's a novelty object which doesn't have broad coverage in reliable English secondary sources. Sibshops (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Nomenclature

"Crypto" has long since superseded "cryptocurrency" in common parlance (not least because its doesn't meet the definition of "currency"). When did this switch occur? kencf0618 (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Typically poorly written WP article.

Among the many, many, many poorly written parts of this, is the following:"Cryptocurrency has undergone several periods of growth and retraction, including several bubbles and market crashes, such as in 2011, 2013–2014/15, 2017–2018, and 2021–2023." What does this mean?? Does it mean that the periods 1995-2011, 2016, 2019-2020, and 2023-2026 saw no growth?? Because if "cryptocurrency" wasn't growing or retracting then, it has to be static (in terms of what?? customers? holdings?? who knows...). Or perhaps a more reasonable interpretation is that those periods had no bubbles nor crashes? I've no idea from this inarticulate nearly meaningless statement. (What does "cryptocurrency" in this context mean? What was "cryptocurrency" in 2009? What is it today??) Yeah, very bad job, guys.~2025-39446-09 (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Edit request: Add January 31, 2026 Market Volatility Update

Hello editors,

I would like to request the addition of a recent, neutral, and well-sourced update to the "Impacts and analysis" section of this article. The update describes a notable market volatility event on January 31, 2026.

Proposed Addition:

On January 31, 2026, the cryptocurrency market recorded a sharp intraday decline, with Bitcoin and Ethereum experiencing accelerated selling pressure. Both assets fell rapidly before showing partial recovery later in the day, reflecting ongoing volatility and heightened uncertainty within the broader crypto market.

Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CoinGabbar07 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

This isn't the type of material typically included in wikipedia articles. Articles are written from the perspective of someone reading it 10 years in the future and generally don't cover day-to-day updates. WP:10YT

In addition, the source used as a reference is not a generally agreed upon reliable source. WP:RS. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

References

Add January 31, 2026 Market Volatility Update

Hello editors,

I would like to request the addition of a recent, neutral, and well-sourced update to the "Impacts and analysis" section of this article. The update describes a notable market volatility event on January 31, 2026.

Proposed Addition:

On January 31, 2026, the cryptocurrency market recorded a sharp intraday decline, with Bitcoin and Ethereum experiencing accelerated selling pressure. Both assets fell rapidly before showing partial recovery later in the day, reflecting ongoing volatility and heightened uncertainty within the broader crypto market.

Thank you. ~2026-81562-2 (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

References

Edit request: volatility update 2026

Hello editors,

I would like to request an update to the “Impacts and analysis” section. The following addition is written in a neutral, easy-to-read manner and reflects broader market behavior rather than short-term price speculation.

Proposed Addition:

In early 2026, the cryptocurrency market experienced noticeable intraday volatility as major assets such as Bitcoin and Ethereum saw fast price swings. On January 31, both cryptocurrencies recorded a sharp decline due to increased selling pressure, followed by a partial recovery later in the day. Analysts noted that these movements reflected growing market uncertainty and showed that crypto assets were reacting more closely to global financial conditions while still remaining highly volatile.

Thank you. ~2026-81562-2 (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

For the cryptocurrency genre we are using only top-shelf WP:RS. We are not using cryptocurrency websites. Find us something like wsj, nyt, bloomberg, etc. No crypto sites, no blogs, no forbes contributor, etc. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:24, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the venue for promoting your website. This is the third topic you created promoting your website. Wikipedia isn't a place for advertising or driving traffic there. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

References

Edit request: Add stablecoin adoption paragraph

I propose adding a short, neutral paragraph to improve coverage of how stablecoins support broader cryptocurrency adoption.

Suggested addition:

“Stablecoins have increasingly served as an introductory tool for individuals exploring cryptocurrency markets. Their price stability allows beginners to interact with blockchain-based financial systems while minimizing exposure to volatility, contributing to their growing global adoption.” [citation needed]

Reasoning: This improves the neutrality and completeness of the cryptocurrency adoption narrative. The content does not promote any company or platform and aligns with the topic's educational scope.

Thank you. CoinGabbar07 (talk) 05:18, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. 🍅 fx (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Wells Fargo 100%Treasury

CHAD JAMALL RICHARDSON heir to the topic of discussion declared that the use of MIT License is a issue that threatens the rights and wish to have the issue terminated for infringement of contract to the Apache license is solely owned by 1 person according to 2018 13f sec documentation made by the estate of RICHARDSON as the heir has no legal OBLIGATION to collect in fiduciary capacity and preform GAL The update to the Bitcoin.org Web address is in direct violation of the eCfr regulations FINCEN for the person is to make known to the authoritys law enforcement that a crime has been found to have occurred fed rule 37 Bitcoin.org1 (talk) 08:11, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

22. February 2026 Proposal: Add section “Modern adoption and use cases”

I propose adding a short section summarising real-world cryptocurrency use since the early 2020s (institutional adoption, stablecoins, DeFi, payments, etc.). The article currently covers technology and regulation well but lacks a concise overview of contemporary usage.

I can draft a brief, neutral summary supported by high-quality secondary sources if there are no objections. LionmerterTHE (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I can see a case for addition of a section. A couple of thoughts:

• Use case often describes proposed or promoted applications. It may be better to focus on documented adoption and real-world usage. We may want to avoid forward-looking or predictions per WP:CRYSTAL.
• Since Blockchain already contains a large section for uses, proposed section may want to focus specifically on cryptocurrency uses and avoid larger blockchain applications, so we don't have too much overlap.

Like a section could cover areas of non broadly blockchain related cryptocurrency uses, like corporate treasury holdings, remittances, payments, and speculative trading, if we have reliable secondary sources for them. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Cryptocurrency "exchange-traded funds" (ETFs) are another instance of institutional adoption that has been verified. They provide regulated financial-market access to crypto assets and are well-documented in reliable secondary sources.

Coverage would remain limited to proven, well-sourced innovations, according to WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:CRYSTAL. LionmerterTHE (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Sure, I don't have any issue if we briefly talk about various ways of investing in cryptocurrencies (ETFs, exchange, or self-custody).

But I think an "Adoption" section may be too vague, broad, and value-laden as a term. A more neutral heading would be "Uses" or "Usage". The blockchain article uses that heading and it may make sense to mirror that terminology here. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

How about, if we focus on a "Institutional adoption" section and refer then to ETFs, corporate treasury holdings etc.

I dont know where I would start with a "Uses" or "Usage" section. LionmerterTHE (talk) 02:32, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

My concern with "Institutional adoption" is that the term isn't clearly defined.

Does it refer to:

• Institutions holding cryptocurrencies on the balance sheets?
• Institutions offering crypto-related financial products (ETFs, treasury companies, etc..)
• Institutions participating in trading markets?
• Regulatory recognition or approval?

"Adoption" can imply more than what the definition is. The concern is that "institutional adoption" can imply "institutional endorsement" and that could have unintended promotional implications. (see WP:PROMO). We may want to narrow the scope of adoption to cover exactly what it exactly is. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 12:59, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I think then you are correct to begin with a "Usage" section and initially restrict the scope. For instance, we start with a brief focus on "Institutions holding cryptocurrencies on the balance sheets?"

After getting input, we can subsequently extend (for example, to include treasury companies, ETFs etc.)

Thoughts? LionmerterTHE (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I have no additional concerns. It sounds good to me! ◦ Sibshops (talk) 13:18, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I started. Could you please check the new Usage section and provide feedback? I started with "Institutional balance-sheet holdings" as a subsection. LionmerterTHE (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

It seems like all the links to the sources are dead-links. Maybe there was a copy-paste error?

Also, it seems going by the titles, for the first three sources, bitcoin-only articles are used in a general cryptocurrency context. Wikipedia editors can't generalize bitcoin-only claims to make general cryptocurrency claims or it would be OR. We can't generalize upwords to make a claim which doesn't appear in a reliable source.

In other words, the source itself has to say, "Cryptocurrencies are X", not just "Bitcoin is X". ◦ Sibshops (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Replaced dead links with sources that describe bitcoin, ether, and other cryptocurrencies as institutional balance-sheet holdings. Please note that Bitcoin or ether are typically used as titles in a broader context of cryptocurrency, and that the broader context of cryptocurrency with institutional balance-sheet holdings is described in the article's body text. I could add articles describing BNB, TRX, LINEA etc. as institutional balance-sheet holdings too but then we risk overcitation per WP:OVERCITE LionmerterTHE (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the dead links.

There are still issues are still verifiability WP:V and synthesis WP:SYNTH.

A broad cryptocurrency summary still needs sources that explicitly make those generalizations. Stacking Bitcoin/Ether/other cryptocurrency examples can't be used to make a general category-wide claim.

For example, if Apple and Microsoft engage in stock buybacks, I can't generalize that to say "Companies engage in stock buybacks." The source still has to say "cryptocurrencies are X" to make the generalized claim. Otherwise broader wording could be considered synthesis.

Regarding verifiability, some of the sentences don't appear to be directly supported by the cited sources.

For example, this sentence:

Since the early 2020s, some corporations and other institutions have reported holding cryptocurrencies as treasury assets or balance-sheet investments

Isn't making the claim in that form. The wording on the wikipedia should generally mirror the wording from the reliable source. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 02:29, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

How about if we include factual information like;

"Publicly traded companies have adopted a strategy of raising capital to acquire and hold bitcoin and other, more obscure cryptocurrencies as corporate treasury assets, using these digital tokens on their balance sheets as part of broader strategic reserve management."[1]

The exact text is backed by the WSJ Sub-title and article body.

and

"Reuters reports that small public companies are increasingly adding the cryptocurrency ether to their corporate treasuries alongside Bitcoin, with corporate treasuries holding over 966,000 ether as of July 2025 - indicating that institutions hold cryptocurrencies as balance-sheet assets.[2]"

Also backed by the Reuters article

If you are fine with this, I understand in which direction I can expand the section. LionmerterTHE (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, these appear to be two reliable sources discussing companies that hold cryptocurrencies on their balance sheets.

In general, I think it works best starting at the source and summarizing it. Initially, we were starting at what to include, and then ran into issues trying to find sources to support the statements. This seems to have caused verification, synthesis, and even unintentional PoV issues (in that we are saying something different than what the source is saying). If we start at the source and summarize that in the article it would have much cleaner attribution. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 13:41, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and use these two sources you found which directly discuss companies holding cryptocurrencies to write a initial paragraph. I also found a syndicated republish of the WSJ article. Of course, feel free to edit or expand. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I like that. Sorry for late reply and thank you for participation! LionmerterTHE (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

@SibshopsThe section is evolving - Super! Thanks for starting it.. 𝓛𝓲𝓸𝓷𝓶𝓮𝓻𝓽𝓮𝓻𝓣𝓗𝓔 (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2026

i need to make a research project so i need to seek for references ~2026-14533-52 (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Why would you need to edit the article then? All the references in that article can be found near the bottom of the page and by viewing the source code. Toast1454_TC 17:42, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Shitcoin

Shitcoin redirecting to Cryptocurrency § Altcoins feels wrong. Shitcoin is a derogatory term specifically for coins of no value and scams. I don't think anyone would call Ethereum a shitcoin, even though it's an altcoin.

Meme coin is a related topic, though there are shitcoins that aren't meme coins - like Bitconnect. Amberkitten (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree. The source excludes Ethereum from the definition.

Called altcoins or, sometimes, "shitcoins," these are essentially penny-stock cryptocurrencies. And they're crazy. Bitcoin tripled its value recently, but many altcoins explode 30, 40 or 50 times over within days. The most famous is Dogecoin, which recently shot up past 10 cents thanks to a potent combination of Reddit and Elon Musk, but there are thousands of altcoins, forming an Indiana Jones-esque Cave of Crypto Wonders.

◦ Sibshops (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

The issue is that the source used does not define what 'shitcoin' means, and I have not found a reliable source that directly defines the term. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 12:17, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

crypto

So what exatly is it I still don't understand from this description ~2026-24512-82 (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Oh you are right. The lead is poorly written and poorly sourced. I'll try to fix. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Okay, the lead should be better than before. Any feedback is welcome. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Bitcoin first cryptocurrency sourcing

@Warudo I am trying to find a reliable source that explicitly states Bitcoin was the first cryptocurrency, but I have not been able to find one. Most reliable sources I have found say instead that the term gained public usage with the rise of Bitcoin, without clearly stating that earlier blockchain-based or other cryptographic currency proposals were not cryptocurrencies.

For example, Internet Policy Review states:

The term cryptocurrency entered public usage with the surge of Bitcoin in 2008.

That addresses the term's became popular with bitcoin, but doesn't state that earlier cryptographic-cash proposals fall outside the category of cryptocurrencies. https://policyreview.info/glossary/cryptocurrency

Likewise, ACM Queue describes Bitcoin as:

Along came bitcoin, a radically different proposal for a decentralized cryptocurrency that didn't need the banks.

That wording describes Bitcoin as a new decentralized cryptocurrency proposal, but it does not clearly say that earlier cryptographic money proposals were not cryptocurrencies, either. https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=3136559

The current sourcing relies on a financial blog and I'm trying to replace it with something stronger. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

It is possible that the definition of cryptocurrency this article uses ("a type of digital asset that uses distributed-ledger, or blockchain, technology to enable a secure transaction", note that this definition is sourced) is not the definition used by the sources you are checking. In that case, what needs fixing is to mention that multiple definitions exist and what they are. However, unless the lead is modified in this way, there is no contradiction. Bitcoin is the first digital currency that used a blockchain and therefore the first cryptocurrency. This follows logically from the definition.

For what it's worth, Wiktionary is on your side on this, saying that cryptocurrency "usually [has] no central issuing or regulating authority" so not always. For this reason, I will not oppose you reverting my edit, but I will say that if you do that, I think you should also change the first sentence to make it clear that having a blockchain is not a requirement for cryptocurrencies. Warudo (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

What are your thoughts about moving to terminology section and matching the phrasing used in the reliable sources? I don't want to changed sourced definitions elsewhere.

Possibly:

Although earlier cryptographic cash proposals existed, the term cryptocurrency entered public usage with the rise of Bitcoin in 2008.

◦ Sibshops (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I reverted this edit because ironically enough it created a contradiction. The section said that The term cryptocurrency entered public usage with the rise of Bitcoin in 2008. but one sentence later we read that the earliest use of the word cryptocurrency was in September 2009. So, was the term introduced in 2008 or 2009? Also the page you linked said that it should be cited as "Pernice, I.G.A., & Scott, B. (2021). Cryptocurrency. Internet Policy Review, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.14763/2021.2.1561". Attributing it only to "Internet Policy Review" and omitting the names of the authors was probably not correct.

So, if we go with your proposal it will have to be attributed WP:INTEXT. I imagine something like:

The word "cryptocurrency", in its modern sense, was added to the Oxford English Dictionary in September 2018, with its earliest usage noted as being on Twitter in September 2009; its diminutive, crypto, was entered in 2022. According to Pernice and Scott, the term cryptocurrency entered public usage with the rise of Bitcoin in 2008.

Warudo (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

That's fair. The authors were vague in discussing how or where it entered public usage. The revert is justified. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 19:33, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 May 2026

In the section discussing El Salvador's adoption of Bitcoin as legal tender, add the following sentence immediately after the mention of Bitcoin becoming legal tender: Change: [the sentence ending with El Salvador adopting Bitcoin as legal tender] To: [same sentence], followed by: "To encourage adoption, President Bukele announced the creation of a government-issued digital wallet called Chivo — slang for "cool" in El Salvador — and offered $30 worth of Bitcoin to any citizen who downloaded the app and registered with their phone number and national ID." Pablozelaya0613 (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

This seems to add undue detail about a specific cryptocurrency to a general cryptocurrency article. Additional detail about Bitcoin's implementation and adoption in El Salvador would probably fit better in a more focused article, such as Bitcoin, rather than here. This addition also doesn't neatly fit with the general cryptocurrency regulation section where the sentence currently is. ◦ Sibshops (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

References

List of cryptocurrency frauds

or List of meme coin frauds. I think this is a must. High profile individuals amassing money at the expense of the poor with no repercussions. Just recent two: $Melania - escaped with almost $70 million, Mr Beast crypto scams [3] ~2026-30106-14 (talk) 20:00, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-30106-14 I second this,

I feel like this would be a good addition to this article!

If someone finds the energy to maintain a Wiki list for this, it might however, be worth it to offload that amount of text into a separate article

😇 TrustedTusk (talk) 09:48, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Coin and Token, and types

Acc to this "(crypto) coins and (crypto) tokens broadly represent separate types of cryptocurrency" but there is nothing in the article to suggest that. here is a bit different: "Payment Token/Native Token/Currency Token = Alternative designations for “coin,”"
Also, the article is badly in need of cryptocurrency categorization [4] [5]. I am not informed enough to edit this topic and I see it's a minefield, but I think it needs to be adressed. ~2026-30106-14 (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

None of those are reliable sources. The gist is that instead of crypto outlets, look for independent sources, ideally secondary sources, which discuss this distinction. If you find a reputable news outlet which mentions this, we can take a look, but mainstream academic journals or books are better. Grayfell (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2026 (UTC)