Introduction
The first paper in this series argued that cryptocurrency emerged from serious questions about money, trust, and individual autonomy, and that it has partially delivered on some of its founding promises while falling short of others. That paper deliberately set aside one of the most striking features of the field: the extraordinary concentration of fraud within it.
The numbers are arresting. The Federal Trade Commission has reported that consumers in the United States lost more than a billion dollars to crypto-related scams in a single recent year, with median individual losses far higher than for any other payment method tracked by the agency. The FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center has documented annual crypto-related losses well into the multiple billions of dollars, and these figures almost certainly understate the true total, since most victims of these schemes do not report the loss to any authority.
A reasonable person encountering these figures may conclude that cryptocurrency is simply a scam by another name, and walk away. But that conclusion, while understandable, is too quick. Fraud has accompanied every major financial innovation in history, from the South Sea Bubble of 1720 to the railroad manias of the nineteenth century to the dot-com era of the late 1990s to the structured-credit boom of the 2000s. The relevant question is not whether crypto has produced fraud — every novel financial frontier has — but why this particular environment has produced so much of it, in such concentrated forms, and what that pattern reveals about the nature of the field.
This paper attempts to answer that question. It does so by examining two categories of factors: the structural features of the technology and markets themselves, and the cultural and cognitive features of the community that has grown up around them. The goal is explanation rather than condemnation. A reader who finishes this paper should understand why fraud thrives here in the way it does, and should be prepared for the next paper in the series, which surveys the specific forms it takes.
Structural Drivers
The structural features of cryptocurrency that make it useful for legitimate purposes are, in many cases, the same features that make it useful for fraudulent ones. This is not a coincidence, and understanding the connection is essential to understanding why the field cannot simply regulate or technologize its way out of the problem.
Irreversibility
The most fundamental structural feature is that cryptocurrency transactions, once confirmed, cannot be undone. In conventional finance, a fraudulent charge on a credit card can be disputed and reversed; a wire transfer made under duress can sometimes be recalled; a check can be stopped. These reversal mechanisms exist because the system has central parties — banks, card networks, clearinghouses — with the authority and the records to undo what has been done.
A cryptocurrency network has no such parties by design. A transaction is final the moment it is included in the ledger, and no court order, no bank manager, and no act of repentance by the perpetrator can recover the funds. This is precisely the property that makes cryptocurrency censorship-resistant, but it is also the property that makes theft of cryptocurrency permanent. A thief who tricks a victim into authorizing a transaction has, in that moment, won. The victim’s only remaining hope is that the thief later moves the funds to an exchange that can identify them and freeze the account — a possibility, but far from a guarantee.
Pseudonymity
Cryptocurrency addresses are not directly tied to real-world identities. A person can create a new address in seconds, without permission or paperwork, and use it to receive funds from anywhere in the world. Sophisticated analysis can often link addresses to individuals through patterns of behavior or interactions with regulated services, but the work is expensive, time-consuming, and far from always successful.
For ordinary users, pseudonymity offers genuine benefits — privacy from commercial surveillance, protection from theft of personal data, the ability to transact without permission from gatekeepers. For fraudsters, the same property dramatically lowers the risk of identification and prosecution. A scammer operating from a jurisdiction with weak law enforcement, behind layers of intermediary addresses, is for practical purposes beyond the reach of victims in another country.
Global, Always-Open Markets
Conventional financial markets operate within national borders, during business hours, under the supervision of specific regulators. Cryptocurrency markets operate globally, around the clock, and across jurisdictions that vary enormously in their regulatory capacity and willingness. An exchange may be incorporated in one country, served by employees in several others, used by customers in dozens, and supervised meaningfully by none.
This globality is part of what makes cryptocurrency useful — a person sending value across borders does not need to navigate the correspondent-banking system or wait for international wires to clear. But the same globality means that a fraudulent platform can serve victims worldwide while remaining outside the reach of any single regulator, and that even when a particular jurisdiction acts, the operators can simply move.
Near-Zero Cost of Token Creation
Creating a new cryptocurrency token, on most modern platforms, costs almost nothing. A modestly skilled programmer can deploy a new token in minutes, with whatever name, supply, and rules he chooses. Legitimate projects use this capability to launch novel products. Fraudulent projects use it to launch tokens that exist solely to extract money from buyers, often with rules embedded in the underlying code that allow the creators to drain the project’s funds at will.
In conventional securities markets, issuing a new instrument requires registration, disclosure, and the involvement of regulated intermediaries. These requirements impose costs, but they also create a paper trail and a set of accountable parties. Cryptocurrency removes the costs and, with them, the trail. The result is that the universe of “investable” crypto tokens has grown to include tens of thousands of items, most of which have no economic substance and many of which were created with predatory intent from the start.
Volatility as Cover
Legitimate cryptocurrency markets are genuinely volatile, with major assets routinely moving twenty percent in a day and minor ones moving far more. This volatility creates ideal cover for fraud. When a fraudulent token collapses to zero, the creators can plausibly claim that the market simply turned against the project. When a manipulated price action drives unsophisticated buyers in at the top of a coordinated pump, the subsequent collapse looks indistinguishable from ordinary market behavior. Volatility makes it harder for victims to recognize that they have been defrauded, and harder for authorities to distinguish fraud from misfortune.
Custodial Risk Concentrated in Lightly Regulated Firms
A great deal of cryptocurrency activity flows through exchanges and custodians — firms that hold customer funds and execute trades on their behalf. In principle, customers could hold their own funds directly, and some do. In practice, most do not, because direct custody is technically demanding and unforgiving of error.
The result is that vast pools of customer money sit in firms whose regulatory supervision ranges from substantial to nonexistent. When such a firm fails — whether through fraud, mismanagement, or simple incompetence — customers typically have no deposit insurance, no government backstop, and weak legal recourse. The failures of major exchanges over the past several years have collectively cost customers tens of billions of dollars, and the pattern has repeated often enough to suggest that the problem is structural rather than incidental.
Cultural and Cognitive Drivers
Structural features explain why fraud is feasible in cryptocurrency. They do not, by themselves, explain why so many people fall for it. For that, we need to look at the culture that has grown up around the technology, and at the cognitive patterns that culture exploits.
Narratives of Overnight Wealth
Cryptocurrency’s most powerful recruiting tool has been the story of early adopters who became wealthy. These stories are true in particular cases — a person who bought Bitcoin at a few dollars and held it for a decade did, in fact, become rich. The stories are also misleading, because they obscure the much larger number of participants who lost money, the role of luck in distinguishing winners from losers, and the difference between the early environment and the present one.
A person who hears the success stories without the context arrives at the market with unrealistic expectations and a willingness to take risks that a more sober assessment would rule out. Fraudsters understand this and design their pitches accordingly. The promise is rarely modest returns from a modest opportunity; it is life-changing wealth, available now, to those who act before the chance is gone.
Tribal Community Dynamics
Cryptocurrency communities, organized around particular tokens or platforms, often develop intense in-group cultures. Members refer to themselves with shared vocabulary, defend the project against critics, and celebrate price increases as collective achievements. The phrases that circulate within these communities — “diamond hands,” “to the moon,” “have fun staying poor” — function partly as encouragement and partly as social pressure against the questions a prudent person would naturally ask.
A newcomer who voices skepticism risks being mocked as ignorant, dismissed as a paid critic, or banned from the community’s online spaces. The result is that the spaces where someone might hope to find honest information are precisely the spaces most engineered to suppress it. Frauds that present themselves as communities — and many do — exploit this dynamic explicitly, building tight in-group bonds before introducing the financial pitch.
Influencer-Driven Information Flow
A great deal of information about specific cryptocurrencies reaches retail buyers through social media influencers — people with large audiences on platforms such as YouTube, X, TikTok, and Instagram who discuss tokens, projects, and trading strategies. Many of these influencers are paid, directly or indirectly, by the projects they discuss, and the disclosure norms that govern such relationships in conventional media are weak or absent here.
The result is that buyers often cannot distinguish independent analysis from paid promotion, and the appearance of broad enthusiasm for a particular token may in fact be the coordinated output of a single marketing budget. Several prominent enforcement actions have established that this is not a hypothetical concern but a regular feature of the industry. For an ordinary buyer trying to make a sound decision, the information environment is hostile in ways that are difficult to perceive from inside it.
Technical Complexity as a Shield
Genuine cryptocurrency systems are technically complex, and the vocabulary surrounding them is dense. This complexity serves legitimate purposes but also provides excellent cover for fraud. A pitch that includes references to “automated market makers,” “liquidity provision,” “yield optimization,” and “cross-chain bridges” can sound sophisticated to a buyer who has neither the time nor the background to evaluate the underlying claims.
Many frauds in the space involve mechanisms that, when examined by someone with the relevant expertise, are quickly recognizable as predatory. But the examination requires the expertise, and most buyers do not have it. The result is an information asymmetry far more severe than in conventional financial markets, where regulators and credentialed intermediaries provide some baseline of professional review.
Fear of Missing Out
Cryptocurrency markets are prone to dramatic, well-publicized price rallies, in which a particular asset’s price multiplies many times over a short period. These rallies, while real, are typically driven by a combination of genuine enthusiasm, speculative momentum, and coordinated promotion, and they are usually followed by equally dramatic declines.
For a person watching from outside, however, the rally is what is visible, and the message it conveys is that something extraordinary is happening that one is missing. This fear of missing out — sometimes abbreviated FOMO and so common in the field that the abbreviation is universal — is one of the most reliable tools fraudsters use to overcome the natural caution that would otherwise protect their targets. The pitch is structured to suggest that the opportunity is closing, that the buyer must act now, and that any delay is a failure of nerve rather than an exercise of wisdom.
The Information Gap
Underlying all of the cultural drivers is a basic asymmetry of information. In any market, some participants know more than others. In cryptocurrency markets, the gap is unusually wide and unusually exploitable.
Large holders of a particular token — sometimes called “whales” — know their own positions and intentions, and can move prices substantially with relatively small actions. Insiders at exchanges know which tokens are about to be listed, which generally causes prices to rise. Project founders know the actual state of their projects, including problems that have not been publicly disclosed. Market makers know the structure of order books and can anticipate the behavior of automated trading systems.
Retail buyers, in contrast, generally know none of these things. They make decisions based on price charts, social media sentiment, and the recommendations of influencers whose own positions and incentives are usually opaque. The result is a market in which the least-informed participants regularly transact with the best-informed, and in which the systematic transfer of wealth from the former to the latter is a structural feature rather than an unfortunate accident.
This is the deeper sense in which the field is hospitable to fraud. Even setting aside outright criminal schemes, the ordinary functioning of the market — through entirely legal coordinated promotion, listing announcements, and short-term trading — produces patterns of gain and loss that look uncomfortably similar to fraud. Distinguishing the legal extraction from the illegal becomes more a matter of which jurisdiction one consults than of the substance of what is happening.
A Comparative Note
It would be unfair to leave the impression that cryptocurrency is uniquely corrupt. Every major financial innovation in history has attracted fraud, often on a spectacular scale. The South Sea Bubble of 1720 ruined fortunes and helped produce Britain’s first major securities-fraud statute. The railroad manias of the 1840s and 1870s produced waves of fraudulent stock promotion. The 1920s saw both genuine innovation and the schemes of operators such as Charles Ponzi, whose name has become synonymous with the form. The dot-com era of the late 1990s saw billions of dollars raised for businesses that turned out to be empty. The structured-credit boom of the 2000s ended in a financial crisis whose effects are still being felt.
What distinguishes cryptocurrency is not the existence of fraud but its concentration and the unusual difficulty of countering it through conventional means. The combination of irreversibility, pseudonymity, global reach, near-zero token creation costs, and weak regulatory coverage gives fraud structural advantages that earlier eras did not provide. The cultural features — tribal communities, influencer economies, narratives of overnight wealth — amplify those advantages further.
This does not mean that crypto is doomed to be a fraud-dominated field forever. Earlier frontiers eventually matured, regulators caught up, and the most egregious forms of fraud retreated to the margins. Something similar may happen here in time. But it has not happened yet, and a person considering participation now must reckon with the field as it is rather than as it may someday become.
Conclusion
Cryptocurrency attracts fraud in unusual concentration because its defining features — irreversibility, pseudonymity, global reach, and minimal barriers to creating new assets — are nearly ideal conditions for predatory schemes, and because the culture surrounding it has developed in ways that suppress the questions and protect the predators rather than the prey. This is not a moral indictment of the technology, nor a claim that everyone in the field is dishonest. It is a sober description of a particular environment, offered so that the reader who chooses to enter it does so with eyes open.
The next paper in this series turns from the why to the what: a field guide to the specific forms that crypto fraud takes, organized as a taxonomy so that a reader can recognize the shape of a scheme even when the particular story is new.
Notes
- The Federal Trade Commission’s consumer-loss figures are drawn from its annual reports on fraud, which compile complaints filed by consumers and partner agencies. The figures should be read as lower bounds; most victims of consumer fraud do not report the incident, and the underreporting rate for crypto-related fraud is generally believed to be especially high because of shame, technical confusion, and skepticism that anything can be done.
- The FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center publishes an annual report summarizing complaint data. In recent years, the report has identified cryptocurrency-related fraud as one of the fastest-growing categories of online crime, with so-called “investment fraud” — the category that includes most large-loss crypto schemes — overtaking business-email compromise as the largest single source of reported losses.
- The historical examples in the comparative section are treated more fully in the works of Charles Kindleberger, Edward Chancellor, and Carlota Perez, all of whom argue that speculative manias and the frauds that accompany them are a recurring feature of major technological transitions rather than aberrations.
- The term “whale,” used in cryptocurrency contexts to refer to a holder of an unusually large position, is borrowed from gambling, where it refers to a high-stakes player whose bets can move the house’s exposure. The borrowed usage retains the implication that the whale’s actions are individually significant rather than just one among many small contributions.
- Several enforcement actions over the past decade have established that paid promotion of cryptocurrencies without proper disclosure constitutes a securities-law violation in jurisdictions where the token in question qualifies as a security. The Securities and Exchange Commission has brought such cases against a number of prominent influencers and celebrities. Whether any particular token is a security remains a contested legal question.
- The phrase “have fun staying poor,” common in some crypto communities, is directed at skeptics and is intended to suggest that anyone who declines to buy will be left behind by the wealth the speaker expects the asset to produce. Its function within the community is closer to a ritual chant than to a serious argument, but it serves the social purpose of marking dissenters as outsiders.
- The asymmetry of information described in the section on the information gap is sometimes referred to in market-microstructure literature as “informed-trader” or “toxic-flow” risk. The technical literature is concerned mainly with the costs to market makers; the present paper is concerned with the costs to retail participants, which are less studied but follow the same logic.
References
Chainalysis. (2024). The 2024 crypto crime report. Chainalysis. https://www.chainalysis.com/reports/
Chancellor, E. (1999). Devil take the hindmost: A history of financial speculation. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Cong, L. W., Li, X., Tang, K., & Yang, Y. (2023). Crypto wash trading. Management Science, 69(11), 6427–6454. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2021.02709
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Internet Crime Complaint Center. (2024). Internet crime report 2023. U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.ic3.gov/AnnualReport/Reports/2023_IC3Report.pdf
Federal Trade Commission. (2024). Consumer Sentinel Network data book 2023. Federal Trade Commission. https://www.ftc.gov/reports
Foley, S., Karlsen, J. R., & Putniņš, T. J. (2019). Sex, drugs, and Bitcoin: How much illegal activity is financed through cryptocurrencies? The Review of Financial Studies, 32(5), 1798–1853. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhz015
Gandal, N., Hamrick, J. T., Moore, T., & Oberman, T. (2018). Price manipulation in the Bitcoin ecosystem. Journal of Monetary Economics, 95, 86–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoneco.2017.12.004
Griffin, J. M., & Shams, A. (2020). Is Bitcoin really un-tethered? The Journal of Finance, 75(4), 1913–1964. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12903
Kindleberger, C. P., & Aliber, R. Z. (2015). Manias, panics, and crashes: A history of financial crises (7th ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
Li, T., Shin, D., & Wang, B. (2021). Cryptocurrency pump-and-dump schemes. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3267041
Lyandres, E., Palazzo, B., & Rabetti, D. (2022). Initial coin offering (ICO) success and post-ICO performance. Management Science, 68(12), 8658–8679. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.4312
Mackay, C. (1841). Memoirs of extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds. Richard Bentley.
Makarov, I., & Schoar, A. (2022). Cryptocurrencies and decentralized finance (DeFi). Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2022(1), 141–215. https://doi.org/10.1353/eca.2022.0017
Perez, C. (2002). Technological revolutions and financial capital: The dynamics of bubbles and golden ages. Edward Elgar.
Securities and Exchange Commission. (2022). SEC charges Kim Kardashian for unlawfully touting crypto security [Press release]. https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2022-183
Shiller, R. J. (2015). Irrational exuberance (3rd ed.). Princeton University Press.
Vasek, M., & Moore, T. (2018). Analyzing the Bitcoin Ponzi scheme ecosystem. In A. Zohar et al. (Eds.), Financial cryptography and data security (pp. 101–112). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58820-8_8
Xu, J., & Livshits, B. (2019). The anatomy of a cryptocurrency pump-and-dump scheme. In Proceedings of the 28th USENIX Security Symposium (pp. 1609–1625). USENIX Association.
