The Crypto Skeptic Steps Down: How Warren Buffett Built A $1 Trillion Empire On Tangible Value

At 94 years old, Warren Buffett has officially handed over day-to-day operations of Berkshire Hathaway to Greg Abel while remaining as chairman, closing a remarkable six-decade chapter leading the $1 trillion conglomerate. What makes this transition particularly noteworthy is not just the succession, but the stark contrast between Buffett’s investment philosophy and the digital asset revolution that defined his final years in charge.

A Decades-Long Critique: Why Buffett Never Bought In

For years, Buffett made his position on Bitcoin unmistakably clear. His most infamous declaration came at Berkshire’s 2018 shareholder meeting: he wouldn’t acquire all the cryptocurrency in existence for a mere $25. When pressed on why such a valuable asset held no appeal, his reasoning revealed the core of his investment ideology. He questioned what one would actually do with the holdings—eventually, someone would need to sell them back. Unlike farmland or apartment buildings that generate genuine income streams, Bitcoin produces nothing tangible for its owner.

This stance wasn’t casual dismissal. Buffett had labeled Bitcoin “rat poison squared” years earlier, emphasizing both the speculative bubble around it and the absence of intrinsic value. His analogy was brutal: while currencies exist to facilitate commerce, Bitcoin lacks the fundamental backing that makes traditional money legitimate. He famously held up a $20 bill during shareholder meetings to illustrate this point—real money serves a purpose recognized globally.

Charlie Munger’s Equally Harsh Judgment

Buffett’s long-time business partner, Charlie Munger, shared this skepticism with equal ferocity. Rather than simply dismissive, Munger deployed stronger language, calling cryptocurrency development “disgusting and contrary to the interests of civilization.” His colorful critiques ranged from describing the sector as a “turd” to likening crypto promotion to a “venereal disease.” Yet Munger expressed genuine pride that Berkshire had steered clear of these assets entirely, particularly as the industry expanded dramatically.

The Philosophy Behind The Skepticism

Understanding why both Buffett and Munger rejected Bitcoin requires examining their core investment principles. They built Berkshire Hathaway on a foundation of acquiring genuine productive capacity—businesses generating real returns, real cash flows, and real value. Starting in 1962 when Buffett bought into a failing textile mill at just $7.60 per share, he methodically transformed it into a diversified powerhouse. Berkshire’s Class A shares now trade above $750,000, a staggering transformation built on tangible economic output rather than speculation.

This philosophy extended to Buffett’s personal wealth accumulation. His roughly $150 billion fortune emerged almost exclusively from Berkshire stock holdings. Even after donating over $60 billion to charitable causes across two decades, his concentration in one company reflected unwavering belief in productive enterprise. Bitcoin, by contrast, generates no dividends, employs no workers, and produces no goods or services. It exists purely on the assumption that future buyers will pay more—the definition of speculation Buffett consistently avoided.

The End Of An Era, But Not A Philosophy

Buffett’s retirement marks the formal conclusion of an investment era built on skepticism toward unproductive assets. While Greg Abel takes the helm operationally, Buffett remains as chairman, suggesting continuity in Berkshire’s fundamental approach. His six decades at the helm witnessed the internet revolution, fintech disruption, and the explosive emergence of digital currencies—yet none swayed his conviction that lasting wealth comes from owning pieces of enterprises that actually deliver something valuable to society.

The $25 offer for all Bitcoin in existence remains the most memorable encapsulation of this philosophy. To Buffett, the question wasn’t about price but about purpose. Assets must work, produce returns, and justify their existence through utility. Until Bitcoin transforms from speculative instrument to productive enterprise—something its technology makes structurally impossible—the world’s most famous value investor maintained there’s simply nothing to do with it but pass it along to the next speculator.