When Legendary Investor Michael Burry Claims Bitcoin is Fundamentally Worthless: Echoes of Historical Bubbles

Michael Burry, the prominent investor whose contrarian approach was immortalized in “The Big Short,” has once again stepped into the spotlight with a provocative stance on cryptocurrency. During a recent appearance on the “Against the Rules” podcast, Burry didn’t mince words about Bitcoin, drawing a stark comparison to one of history’s most famous speculative frenzies.

Burry’s core argument centers on Bitcoin being fundamentally worthless from a valuation perspective. According to his podcast commentary, the cryptocurrency resembles the Dutch tulip mania of the 17th century—a historical episode where asset prices became completely detached from intrinsic value before the inevitable collapse. The investor expressed particular disdain for Bitcoin’s price trajectory, specifically dismissing predictions that Bitcoin could surge to $100,000 as “the most absurd proposition.”

What seems to frustrate Burry most is the casual manner in which market commentators promote astronomical price targets. In his view, media personalities casually discussing Bitcoin potentially climbing to $100,000, only to “accept” temporary pullbacks to $98,000, exemplifies the irrational exuberance plaguing cryptocurrency markets. For Burry, such price discussions reflect speculative fervor rather than sound financial analysis.

The comparison to tulip mania is particularly noteworthy. Just as 17th-century Dutch merchants drove tulip bulb prices to astronomical levels based purely on aesthetic appeal and scarcity perception, Burry suggests Bitcoin’s value proposition relies similarly on sentiment rather than fundamental utility. His characterization of Bitcoin as worthless represents a fundamental rejection of the narrative that cryptocurrencies possess intrinsic technological or economic value.

Burry’s contrarian nature—the same trait that led him to correctly predict the 2008 financial crisis—continues to position him as a skeptic in markets dominated by mainstream enthusiasm. Whether his assessment proves prescient or merely reflects a generational divide in asset valuation remains a subject of intense debate within financial circles.