Fed's Kashkari calls crypto utterly useless

TLDR

Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari has again attacked cryptocurrencies, reportedly calling them utterly useless, reinforcing his long standing view that most crypto has no legitimate economic role.

1. Kashkari has long argued that Bitcoin and most other coins are for speculation, scams, and illicit finance, not for payments or productive investment.
2. His remarks highlight skepticism inside the Federal Reserve toward integrating volatile, permissionless crypto into the regulated dollar banking system.
3. The practical impact depends on how lawmakers and other regulators treat stablecoins, bank custody, and access to payment rails over the next few years.

Deep Dive

1. Kashkaris View On Crypto

Neel Kashkari has been one of the most outspoken crypto skeptics among US central bankers, previously calling most of the space fraud, hype and noise and dismissing Bitcoin as having no cash flows or intrinsic value.

By describing crypto as utterly useless, he is essentially restating that, in his view, existing cryptocurrencies have not proven themselves as reliable money, as a store of value, or as a driver of real economic productivity.

He often points to use cases like gambling, rug pulls, and unregulated token issuance as evidence that the sector is dominated by speculative and illicit activity rather than everyday payments.

2. Why This Matters For Crypto

Kashkari does not set policy alone, but his stance signals a faction within the Fed that sees little benefit in private cryptocurrencies and significant risks for financial stability and consumers.

That worldview supports tighter controls on how banks interact with crypto, higher scrutiny for crypto firms seeking access to dollar payment rails, and skepticism toward narratives like Bitcoin as money or DeFi replacing banks.

3. What To Watch Next

First, watch whether other Fed officials echo Kashkaris tone or instead acknowledge more neutral or constructive roles for blockchain, such as tokenized deposits or regulated stablecoins.

Second, monitor concrete rule making: US stablecoin legislation, bank-capital treatment for crypto exposures, and supervisory guidance on custody will matter far more than one officials rhetoric.

Third, pay attention to how markets react: historically, broad crypto prices do not move much on individual critical comments unless they foreshadow specific policy actions that restrict access or liquidity.

Conclusion

Kashkaris utterly useless remark continues a long pattern of central bank skepticism toward unbacked, volatile crypto assets, especially as money.

For crypto users, the bigger story is not one quote but whether this skeptical stance shapes actual rules around stablecoins, bank involvement, and access to dollar infrastructure in ways that constrain or channel future growth.