🎉 Hey Gate Square friends! Non-stop perks and endless excitement—our hottest posting reward events are ongoing now! The more you post, the more you win. Don’t miss your exclusive goodies! 🚀
🆘 #Gate 2025 Semi-Year Community Gala# | Square Content Creator TOP 10
Only 1 day left! Your favorite creator is one vote away from TOP 10. Interact on Square to earn Votes—boost them and enter the prize draw. Prizes: iPhone 16 Pro Max, Golden Bull sculpture, Futures Vouchers!
Details 👉 https://www.gate.com/activities/community-vote
1️⃣ #Show My Alpha Points# | Share your Alpha points & gains
Post your
Harvard Professor and Former IMF Chief Economist Revisits Bitcoin Misjudgment
Kenneth Rogoff, former Chief Economist at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and now a professor of economics at Harvard University, has reflected on his decade-old prediction about Bitcoin. At the time, Rogoff argued that the cryptocurrency was more likely to be valued at $100 than $100,000—a forecast that history has proven dramatically wrong.
Rethinking Past Assumptions
In a recent social media post, Rogoff admitted that he underestimated the U.S. government’s willingness to adopt pragmatic cryptocurrency regulations. He recalled questioning why policymakers would support a system that could facilitate tax evasion and illicit activity. What he failed to anticipate, he said, was Bitcoin’s evolution into a competitor to fiat currencies in the global underground economy, creating a strong price floor for the digital asset.
Surprised by Regulatory Resilience
Rogoff also expressed surprise at regulators’ ability to hold and manage large volumes of cryptocurrency without triggering systemic fallout. He suggested that this dynamic has exposed a significant conflict of interest within financial oversight institutions.
Promoting a New Narrative
While Rogoff’s reflections shed light on how early skepticism missed the broader trajectory of Bitcoin, his remarks also serve another purpose. The timing of his comments coincides with the promotion of his new book, Our Dollar, Your Problem. Observers note that his analysis appears less like a wholesale reversal of his earlier views, and more like a strategic reframing in support of his latest work.