For US policymakers, Bitcoin is a reminder that where state currencies weaken, alternatives take root.
In a bustling cafe in Buenos Aires, a young freelance designer is paid not in pesos, but in Bitcoin. After years of high inflation, holding pesos between paychecks has often meant losing purchasing power quickly. Half a world away in Lagos, a small business owner uses bitcoin to receive payments from abroad. With limited access to international banking and high costs for conventional transfers, bitcoin gives him a reliable way to transact across borders and keep his business running.
These two people live in very different economies, yet both are part of the same emerging financial ecosystem, one where digital currencies like bitcoin are reshaping how people think about money. For US policymakers, these patterns matter. The way citizens worldwide adopt or reject bitcoin reveals not only personal strategies for financial survival but also deeper political currents: the weakening of monetary authority in fragile states, the reassertion of financial autonomy by individuals, and the long-run challenge to the US dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency.
Awareness versus Understanding
If awareness alone were the measure of adoption, Bitcoin would already be a universal currency. Across the 25 countries and more than 25,000 people surveyed by the Cornell Bitcoin Research Project, recognition of Bitcoin’s name is extraordinarily high—around 90 percent. But knowledge is shallow. Just 13 percent of respondents could explain core features such as Bitcoin’s fixed supply of 21 million coins or distinguish between custodial wallets (controlled by third parties) and non-custodial wallets (controlled by users).
In practical terms, limited knowledge can keep people from using bitcoin effectively—such as by making (or avoiding) costly mistakes, relying on third parties when self-custody would offer more security, or failing to see how bitcoin could help with goals like protecting savings from inflation, sending remittances cheaply, or trading for profit. Additionally, knowledge gaps can limit how confidently people use bitcoin to achieve the autonomy they seek. High awareness without confidence in use leads to partial adoption; people who have heard of bitcoin but cannot, or will not, rely on it in a moment of need.
Who Owns Bitcoin and Why
Ownership of Bitcoin is far from evenly distributed, and the Cornell project shows that the profiles of those who hold it often reflect the pressures and opportunities in their economic environments. Across the 25 countries surveyed, men between the ages of 30 and 44 make up the largest share of owners. In 22 of 25 countries, ownership is also more common among those with higher levels of education, yet in 20 of the 25 countries, lower-income groups show a greater likelihood of adoption, often because Bitcoin serves less as a speculative bet and more as protection against instability.
Overall, about 30 percent of respondents across the 25 countries reported ever owning Bitcoin, though with wide variation. In some places, ownership has been widespread: in El Salvador, where bitcoin had legal tender status and government programs incentivized adoption, more than 70 percent of respondents reported holding it, though actual use patterns vary widely. In Venezuela and Turkey, years of hyperinflation or currency controls have made bitcoin a practical store of value for the 44 percent and 42 percent of the populations, respectively, that have owned bitcoin. By contrast, in financially stable economies such as Japan and Italy (with under 10 percent current ownership) and the United States (12 percent), current ownership is more limited, reflecting both currency stability and more cautious investing cultures. These regional contrasts highlight that while the global average suggests modest adoption, the lived reality depends heavily on local economic and political conditions.
Behind these statistics are distinct human motivations. An Argentine system administrator we spoke with described Bitcoin as “a real possibility” when the peso became unreliable and access to dollars was blocked. An interviewee in Hong Kong saw it as a way to reduce the high costs and poor exchange rates faced by Southeast Asian domestic workers sending money home. In India, a respondent cited buying bitcoin as a way to ensure freedom and a way out from the current, corrupting systems. A Lebanese participant also pointed to government corruption and misinformation as the push that led them to bitcoin. In Nigeria, one respondent said it provided access to global markets without relying on banks or international payment networks. In Poland, one educator said that while bitcoin is the only currency that outpaces inflation, its real value lies in its ethos, restoring a renewed faith in humanity.
People turn to bitcoin for different reasons—escaping weak currencies, reducing transaction costs, or asserting control over their assets—but the theme is the same, which is that it has become a vehicle for financial agency. It can defend income from inflation, move money across borders without intermediaries, and keep savings beyond the reach of any single government.
From Holding to Using
Eighty-four percent of owners globally have transacted with bitcoin at least once. But high-frequency bitcoin use—defined by transactions at least once a week—is less typical. About one-third of owners transact more than once a week. South Korea, which is a relatively low adoption country, leads on frequency, with more than half of holders transacting weekly, followed by Japan and Saudi Arabia, where frequent use also makes up the largest share of activity.
Other countries, like Russia, are not at the top in terms of weekly use, but their Bitcoin story highlights a different dimension: custody. In Russia, a merchant importing goods might insist on a non-custodial wallet to avoid the risk of frozen funds. Although Canada was not part of our study, its recent experience illustrates the stakes of wallet choice. During the 2022 “Freedom Convoy,” law enforcement, under an emergency directive, froze dozens of bank accounts and exchange-linked crypto wallets used for fundraising. An investor who previously dismissed wallet type as unimportant quickly discovered that custodial wallets, unlike non-custodial ones, can be subject to state control. Such examples show how reliance on custodial control can leave access to financial assets vulnerable in moments of disruption. By contrast, non-custodial control ensures that individuals retain direct access to their assets.
Barriers to Ownership
If Bitcoin’s potential lies in its use, understanding why people choose not to own it is equally revealing. The Cornell survey shows that the top reasons are less dramatic than public debate often suggests. Globally, the most common explanation for never owning bitcoin is simple disinterest, cited by more than a third of respondents. Among those who once held it, the leading reason for exit is not fear or scandal, but profit-taking—42 percent reported selling after gains. Other barriers, such as security and fraud concerns or financial constraints, rank just below, while issues that dominate headlines, like environmental impact, regulatory crackdowns, or illicit activity, appear far less frequently. The data suggests that adoption is less hindered by sensational fears than by practical factors: whether people find bitcoin useful, safe, and accessible in their daily lives.
At the country level, barriers reveal striking regional contrasts. In 14 of the 25 nations surveyed, including the United States, Italy, and Lebanon, the top reason for never owning bitcoin was simply a lack of interest. In eight others, such as Nigeria, Kenya, and Venezuela, financial constraints dominated, reflecting contexts where people may want access but lack the disposable income to engage. Only a handful of cases pointed to other leading concerns: volatility in South Korea, fraud in Hong Kong, and regulatory restrictions in China. These exceptions suggest that local conditions shape perceptions, yet the broader picture is that obstacles to adoption are less about ideology and more about everyday realities.
These findings reinforce a central theme of the survey: barriers are rarely absolute. Some reflect gaps in understanding or usability that education and design can address. Others stem from economic realities beyond individual control. Taken together, they show that while barriers remain, many are surmountable, pointing to bitcoin’s potential as a broader tool for financial empowerment.
Bitcoin and the Future of Money
For American policymakers, the survey’s findings carry strategic weight. The dollar remains the cornerstone of global finance, but Bitcoin’s rise underscores how fragile currencies can lose legitimacy and how quickly individuals seek alternatives. In fragile states, adoption erodes monetary authority, creating economic zones outside government reach. In stable economies, Bitcoin appeals to those who value optionality, preserving assets beyond the grasp of any single government or bank.
The United States, therefore, faces a paradox. Bitcoin can advance liberal values, empowering individuals in authoritarian regimes, bypassing capital controls, and reducing remittance costs. But it also offers rivals and non-state actors a parallel system less dependent on the dollar. Policymakers should see Bitcoin less as a direct threat and more as a signal: confidence in money cannot be taken for granted. Where governments falter, alternatives will flourish.
That signal, however, is not abstract. At its core, Bitcoin is infrastructure, an open network that lets anyone hold and transfer value without needing permission from any government, including the United States. Every ten minutes, another block is added to the chain, indifferent to politics. The real question is whether people can use it effectively, whether they can access on-ramps, manage fees, and control their assets through non-custodial wallets.
For US policymakers, the lesson is clear: ignoring these bottom-up dynamics risks strategic myopia. But widespread adoption is not inevitable. It will depend on whether people, especially in fragile states, find in Bitcoin a credible alternative to government-backed money, and whether stable economies like the United States choose to accommodate or restrict its growth. That decision will shape not only the future of financial freedom but also the foundations of monetary power in the twenty-first century.
About the Authors: Sarah Kreps and Ella Hough
Sarah Kreps is the John L. Wetherill Professor of Government and Director of the Tech Policy Institute at Cornell University, as well as a senior fellow at the Bitcoin Policy Institute. Her research examines how emerging technologies—such as drones, artificial intelligence, cryptocurrency, and cybersecurity—shape national security and international politics. These issues are the subject of numerous academic and policy articles and books, including the forthcoming Harnessing Disruption: Building the Tech Future without Breaking Society (Oxford University Press, 2026).
Ella Hough is a researcher focused on systems that empower human agency and expand opportunities for flourishing. A TEDx speaker, she is a Junior Fellow at the Cornell Brooks School Tech Policy Institute, where she helps lead a study across 25 countries on bitcoin adoption. Her previous experience includes roles at Galaxy in asset management, bitcoin mining, and research; Gridless in Kenya, connecting bitcoin mining with energy access; and IBM Canada, managing STEM education programs. She received her B.A. from Cornell University, where she also founded the Cornell Bitcoin Club.
Image: Frame Stock Footage/Shutterstock
