Professors from National Taiwan University and National Chengchi University criticize the Bitcoin Ponzi Scheme! Experts: The market makers for money laundering are in TradFi.

Professor Zhang Senlin from the Department of Finance at National Taiwan University posted on social media, pointing out that the international fraud amount reaches as high as 1 trillion US dollars, and directly stated that the fraud syndicates “mainly rely on Bitcoin for money laundering,” criticizing that Bitcoin will eventually turn out to be a Ponzi Scheme. Zhou Guannan from National Chengchi University’s Department of Finance publicly supports Zhang Senlin's viewpoint, stating, “I couldn’t agree more, it’s just a Ponzi Scheme,” and asserts that Bitcoin investors “will face retribution,” but many researchers rebutted this viewpoint by claiming that the scale of money laundering in TradFi is even larger.

Zhou Guannan and Zhang Senlin's Ponzi Scheme allegations

Professor Zhang Senlin from National Taiwan University’s Department of Finance pointed out on social media on November 25 that the international fraud amount has reached 1 trillion USD, directly indicating that fraud groups “mainly rely on Bitcoin for Money Laundering,” criticizing that Bitcoin will ultimately be a Ponzi Scheme. He stated, “Bitcoin has no substantial assets and is not worth investing in.” Zhang Senlin further suggested that if investors are willing to take high risks, they should choose traditional financial instruments like TQQQ or Taiwan Index Futures with 3x leverage.

Zhou Guannan from the Finance Department of National Chengchi University also publicly supports Zhang Senlin's viewpoint, stating that “nothing could be more agreed upon than this, it is a Ponzi Scheme,” and asserts that Bitcoin investors “will face consequences.” The high-profile statements from the two professors have once again plunged academia, practitioners, and market investors into a large-scale debate regarding the nature of Bitcoin. Zhou Guannan's stance is particularly noteworthy because, as a professor in the Finance Department of NCCU, his remarks hold considerable influence over students and the general public.

The academic authority's comprehensive denial of Bitcoin has sparked intense reactions within the Taiwanese community. Supporters believe the professor has articulated the fundamental issues of Bitcoin, while opponents criticize this discourse for lacking a basic understanding of blockchain technology and decentralized finance. More importantly, the accusation of labeling Bitcoin as a Ponzi Scheme needs to meet the basic definition of a Ponzi Scheme: a centralized issuer, promises of fixed returns, and payments to early investors made from the funds of later investors. However, Bitcoin clearly does not meet these criteria.

Money Laundering Data Reveals the Truth: TradFi is the Main Force

Regarding Zhang Senlin's direct binding of the fraud amount to Bitcoin, several researchers have raised objections. Financial researcher Yu Zhe'an pointed out: “Confusing 'someone committing a crime with a certain asset' and 'the asset itself being a Ponzi Scheme' are two completely different matters.” He emphasized that if Bitcoin itself were a Ponzi Scheme, clear evidence should be found from the open-source code and system design, but there is currently no such conclusion.

According to data from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the scale of money laundering in the traditional financial system accounts for 2% to 5% of global GDP each year, approximately $2.2 to $5.6 trillion. According to a report by Chainalysis, the amount identified as “illegal activity money flowing into identified malicious addresses” in 2024 is about $40.9 billion. The gap between the two exceeds 100 times, equating the rampant fraud with Bitcoin prices while ignoring the truly hard-to-trace black money flow.

Money Laundering Scale Data Comparison

TradFi: $2.2 to $5.6 trillion annually (United Nations data)

Cryptocurrency: Approximately $40.9 billion in 2024 (Chainalysis data)

Scale Gap: The scale of money laundering in TradFi is over 100 times that of cryptocurrency.

This data comparison reveals a key fact: although cryptocurrencies are indeed used in some criminal activities, their scale is far smaller than that of the TradFi system. More importantly, the blockchain characteristics of Bitcoin make all transactions publicly traceable, allowing law enforcement agencies to track the flow of funds through on-chain analysis, a level of transparency that is impossible to achieve in the TradFi system.

In the past, there have indeed been instances of criminal flows of money through cryptocurrencies, but this does not mean that Bitcoin itself is a scam; rather, it is a “human nature issue” and not related to the tool. Just as cash, gold, and artworks have been used for money laundering, we do not consider these assets themselves as tools for fraud. The use of a tool by criminals does not imply that the tool itself is guilty.

Ponzi Scheme Definition Examination: Bitcoin Does Not Meet Basic Criteria

In response to the core argument that “Bitcoin is a Ponzi Scheme,” several observers have refuted this point by point, arguing that such accusations overlook the necessary conditions of a Ponzi scheme. Bitcoin has no issuer, no fixed income, no promised returns, and there is no structure of “new money filling in for old money,” which naturally does not conform to the traditional definition of a Ponzi scheme.

The classic definition of a Ponzi Scheme includes several core elements: first, there is a centralized issuer or operator; second, there are promises of fixed or high returns to investors; third, returns to early investors are paid out of the funds from new investors; fourth, there is a lack of a real profit model or asset backing. Bitcoin does not meet these criteria. It is decentralized, with no central authority controlling it; it has never promised any fixed returns; its price is determined entirely by market supply and demand; its value comes from network effects and user consensus, rather than pyramid-like fund flows.

The founder of Inside, Hsiao Shang-Nong, cited the perspective from “Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind” to point out that the essence of currency is a form of “collective imagination”. The value of Bitcoin derives from the shift of users from “centralized authority” to “immutable code”. He believes that viewing Bitcoin as absurd is a perspective rooted in the narrative of TradFi, while the use of Bitcoin in crime actually proves its high liquidity and censorship resistance.

The founder of “Tech People”, Huang Yuqi, stated: The essence of trade is exchange, and whether your item has value depends on whether the other party wants to exchange with you. Just like player cards, some see them as priceless, while others are completely indifferent. This perspective of relative value challenges the traditional finance definition of an asset's “intrinsic value.”

Cognitive Gap in Trans-Pacific Systems

Legal commentator Guo Ke lawyer directly pointed out the differences between Taiwan and the United States. He stated that the President, Vice President, Secretary of the Treasury, and Fed Chair of the United States all refer to Bitcoin as “digital gold” or “sound asset,” while some professors in Taiwan define it as a “Ponzi Scheme,” describing the two as creating a “wonderful contrast across the Pacific.”

This cognitive gap is not accidental, but reflects the differences in thinking under different financial systems and regulatory frameworks. After years of market development and regulatory exploration, mainstream institutions in the United States have accepted Bitcoin as a new asset class. The SEC has approved Bitcoin spot ETFs, and top asset management companies like BlackRock manage billions of dollars in Bitcoin assets, all of which are manifestations of market maturity.

In contrast, Taiwan's regulatory environment and academic discussions remain at an earlier stage. Part of the reason is the frequent occurrence of cryptocurrency scams in Taiwan, which has led to a negative impression of the entire industry in society. However, the logic of conflating the issue of scams with the technology itself is precisely the core fallacy criticized by experts.

The Conflict of Financial Narratives and the Necessity of Rational Discussion

Some industry insiders believe that the discussion should return to institutional facts rather than emotional labels. Equating Bitcoin investors with accomplices to fraud is not only inaccurate but may also mislead society. The biggest breeding ground for international Money Laundering remains in the TradFi system, while the traceability of Bitcoin actually enhances law enforcement efficiency. Indeed, there were fraudulent cash flows participating in Bitcoin early on, but as money launderers gradually withdrew, the crypto market entered a phase dominated by belief and value.

In summary, the debate reflects a conflict between two financial narratives: one insists that traditional currency must be backed by the state and supported by a regulatory framework; the other believes that decentralization and open-source systems can create a more transparent and trustworthy clearing layer. As global regulation matures and international institutions continue to incorporate Bitcoin, the internal academic debate in Taiwan becomes even more significant. How to engage in a more rational discussion amidst the differences in facts, data, and systems may be the true focus worth noting in this Ponzi Scheme dispute initiated by Zhou Guannan and Zhang Senlin.