Chris Skinner, the finance commentator and author, argues that cryptocurrency should not be dismissed as a scam simply because criminals use it. In an essay published in September 2026, he draws a clear line between losses on risky assets and deliberate deception, contending that the person who misuses an asset — not the asset itself — bears responsibility for fraud. The framing speaks to a question that continues to shape how digital assets are judged: whether crime involving crypto indicts the technology or the people who exploit it.

At the core of Skinner's argument is the distinction between an investment that loses value and a scheme built to steal. If Bitcoin falls from $100,000 to $50,000, he writes, an investor has lost money but has not necessarily been scammed. By contrast, someone who promises a 20% monthly return through a secret trading strategy and then takes the deposit is committing fraud, in his example.

He also describes a token promoter who secretly controls most of a token's supply, drives up its price and sells holdings to unsuspecting buyers. Skinner says such conduct may involve fraud and market manipulation. A fake exchange that accepts customer deposits and then steals the assets is another case where the operator's actions, rather than the underlying technology, define the crime.

Fraud Uses Familiar Tactics

According to Skinner, crypto scams rely on an old method: selling a story before taking someone's money. The fraudster claims to know what others do not, points to extraordinary returns, cites apparent success stories and manufactures urgency. The pitch can leave a target feeling fortunate to have found the opportunity and foolish to question it.

He compares this behavior with historical financial frauds, naming Charles Ponzi and Bernie Madoff as examples that did not depend on Bitcoin or blockchain. In his view, the technology is simply a new wrapper around an older exploitation of trust — the same theme that runs through his latest book, Diary of a Ponzi Scheme. The markers he describes — secret strategies, extraordinary promised returns, manufactured urgency — long predate digital assets, reinforcing his point that the tools change while the tactics do not.

The argument does not excuse crimes involving digital assets. Skinner lists ransomware payments, theft, money laundering and efforts to obscure transactions as serious problems for the industry, and notes that crypto firms have had to build stronger controls around custody, identity, transaction monitoring and financial crime.

He further argues that other forms of money are not labeled criminal merely because criminals use them. Dollars, euros and pounds can all be used in crime, while banks, shell companies, offshore jurisdictions, casinos and trade finance have also served as channels for illicit funds. Cryptocurrency, he says, is held to a different standard largely because many people still find it new, complicated and disconnected from familiar financial institutions.

Institutional Access Does Not Remove Risk

Skinner points to JPMorgan's commercial activity as evidence that institutions can treat Bitcoin as an asset even while executives remain skeptical. He says Jamie Dimon stated in 2025 that JPMorgan would allow clients to buy Bitcoin and display the holdings on their statements. The bank, he adds, continues its blockchain work through Kinexys, spanning areas that include repo, data sharing and correspondent banking.

He also cites BlackRock's iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT), an exchange-traded product offering Bitcoin exposure. Skinner says BlackRock reported that IBIT held around $61.6 billion in net assets as of September 8, 2026, and that the firm's 2026 investment outlook cited $25.2 billion flowing into Bitcoin exchange-traded products during 2025.

In Skinner's account, these examples show Bitcoin being discussed in conventional investment terms — allocation, diversification, volatility, return and risk. They do not establish that Bitcoin is safe, that prices will rise, or that every cryptocurrency is legitimate. Institutional access and criminal misuse, he argues, can exist at the same time, and institutional involvement is therefore no guarantee of safety or legitimacy.

Skinner's conclusion is that scrutiny should focus on conduct and risk rather than treating an entire asset class as criminal. As digital assets, tokenized deposits and blockchain services converge with traditional finance, he says, the boundary between “crypto” and “finance” is becoming harder to draw. That, however, does not erase the need to identify and address fraud within the market.

Read Skinner's full argument.