In a rare moment of public reflection, Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff acknowledged that his 2018 prediction about Bitcoin completely missed the mark. Back then, he claimed Bitcoin was more likely to fall to $100 than climb to $100,000. Fast forward to August 2025, and the cryptocurrency has shattered expectations—trading above $112,000 and even peaking near $124,500 earlier this month.
What Rogoff Got Wrong
Rogoff highlighted three key areas where his judgment failed:
- Regulatory Misread: He believed the U.S. government would take harsh action against digital currencies. Instead, regulation proved more lenient than expected, allowing the market to thrive.
- Underestimated Illicit Demand: He overlooked how Bitcoin’s use in the underground economy would sustain and even boost demand.
- Blind Spot on Institutional Interests: He failed to foresee a regulatory climate that not only tolerated but indirectly supported crypto investment—even by those closely tied to political power.
One of the most striking signs of this shift came from Harvard itself. In 2025, the Harvard Management Company, which manages the university’s endowment, invested $116 million in BlackRock’s spot Bitcoin ETF. This move marked a major change in how traditional institutions view digital assets.
Industry Reactions: From Criticism to Humor
Rogoff’s admission sparked a wave of responses from industry leaders:
- Matt Hougan (Bitwise): Said Rogoff underestimated the power and viability of decentralized governance at scale.
- David Lawant (FalconX): Joked that Rogoff’s own book, The Curse of Cash, might have unintentionally nudged him toward supporting Bitcoin.
- Matthew Sigel (VanEck): Called Rogoff a premature pessimist who wrongly declared Bitcoin dead from within a financial echo chamber.
Rogoff’s reversal underlines how unpredictable the crypto space can be. What once seemed impossible—regulatory openness, mass institutional buy-in, and continued underground demand—has become the new normal. His earlier stance serves as a cautionary tale for those quick to dismiss innovation in its early stages.
