Connect with us

Published

on

The crypto market has been battered this year, with more than $2 trillion wiped off its value since its peak in Nov. 2021. Cryptocurrencies have been under pressure after the collapse of major exchange FTX.

Jonathan Raa | Nurphoto | Getty Images

2022 marked the start of a new “crypto winter,” with high-profile companies collapsing across the board and prices of digital currencies crashing spectacularly. The events of the year took many investors by surprise and made the task of predicting bitcoin’s price that much harder.

The crypto market was awash with pundits making feverish calls about where bitcoin was heading next. They were often positive, though a few correctly forecast the cryptocurrency sinking below $20,000 a coin.

But many market watchers were caught off guard in what has been a tumultuous year for crypto, with high-profile company and project failures sending shock waves across the industry.

It began in May with the collapse of terraUSD, or UST, an algorithmic stablecoin that was supposed to be pegged one-to-one with the U.S. dollar. Its failure brought down terraUSD’s sister token luna and hit companies with exposure to both cryptocurrencies.

Three Arrows Capital, a hedge fund with bullish views on crypto, plunged into liquidation and filed for bankruptcy because of its exposure to terraUSD.

Then came the November collapse of FTX, one of the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchanges which was run by Sam Bankman-Fried, an executive who was often in the spotlight. The fallout from FTX continues to ripple across the cryptocurrency industry.

On top of crypto-specific failures, investors have also had to contend with rising interest rates, which have put pressure on risk assets, including stocks and crypto.

Bitcoin has sunk around 75% since reaching its all-time high of nearly $69,000 in November 2021 and more than $2 trillion has been wiped off the value of the entire cryptocurrency market. On Friday, bitcoin was trading at just under $17,000.

Loading chart…

CNBC reached out to the people behind some of the boldest price calls on bitcoin in 2022, asking them how they got it wrong and whether the year’s events have changed their outlook for the world’s largest digital currency. 

Tim Draper: $250,000 

In 2018, at a tech conference in Amsterdam, Tim Draper predicted bitcoin reaching $250,000 a coin by the end of 2022. The famed Silicon Valley investor wore a purple tie with bitcoin logos, and even performed a rap about the digital currency onstage. 

Four years later, it’s looking pretty unlikely Draper’s call will materialize. When asked about his $250,000 target earlier this month, the Draper Associates founder told CNBC $250,000 “is still my number” — but he’s extending his prediction by six months.

VC investor Tim Draper: Bitcoin is 'decentralized, open and transparent'

“I expect a flight to quality and decentralized crypto like bitcoin, and for some of the weaker coins to become relics,” he told CNBC via email.

Bitcoin would need to rally nearly 1,400% from its current price of just under $17,000 for Draper’s prediction to come true. His rationale is that despite the liquidation of notable players in the market like FTX, there’s still a huge untapped demographic for bitcoin: women.

“My assumption is that, since women control 80% of retail spending and only 1 in 7 bitcoin wallets are currently held by women, the dam is about to break,” Draper said.

Nexo: $100,000 

In April, Antoni Trenchev, the CEO of crypto lender Nexo, told CNBC he thought the world’s biggest cryptocurrency could surge above $100,000 “within 12 months.” Though he still has four months to go, Trenchev acknowledges it is improbable that bitcoin will rally that high anytime soon. 

Bitcoin “was on a very positive path” with institutional adoption growing, Trenchev says, but “a few major forces interfered,” including an accumulation of leverage, borrowing without collateral or against low-quality collateral, and fraudulent activity. 

“I am pleasantly surprised by the stability of crypto prices, but I do not think we are out of the woods yet and that the second and third-order effects are still to play out, so I am somewhat skeptical as to a V-shape recovery,” Trenchev said. 

The entrepreneur says he’s also done making bitcoin price predictions. “My advice to everyone, however, remains unchanged,” he added. “Get a single digit percentage point of your investable assets in bitcoin and do not look at it for 5-10 years. Thank me later.” 

Guido Buehler: $75,000 

On Jan. 12, Guido Buehler, the former CEO of regulated Swiss bank Seba, which is focused on cryptocurrencies, said his company had an “internal valuation model” of between $50,000 and $75,000 for bitcoin in 2022.

Buehler’s reasoning was that institutional investors would help drive the price higher.

SEBA Bank CEO says institutional investors looking for right time to get in on crypto

At the time, bitcoin was trading at between $42,000 and $45,000. Bitcoin never reached $50,000 in 2022.

The executive, who now runs his own advisory and investment firm, said 2022 has been an “annus horribilis,” in response to CNBC questions about what went wrong with the call.

“The war in Ukraine in February triggered a shock to the paradigm of world order and the financial markets,” Buehler said, citing the consequences of raised market volatility and rising inflation in light of the disruption of commodities like oil.

Another major factor was “the realization that interest rates are still the driver of most asset classes,” including crypto, which “was hard blow for the crypto community, where there has been the belief that this asset class is not correlated to traditional assets.”

Buehler said lack of risk management in the crypto industry, missing regulation and fraud have also been major factors affecting prices.

The executive remains bullish on bitcoin, however, saying it will reach $75,000 “sometime in the future,” but that it is “all a matter of timing.”

“I believe that BTC has proven its robustness throughout all the crisis since 2008 and will continue to do so.”

Paolo Ardoino: $50,000 

Paolo Ardoino, chief technology officer of Bitfinex and Tether, told CNBC in April that he expected bitcoin to fall sharply below $40,000 but end the year “well above” $50,000.

“I’m a bullish person on bitcoin … I see so much happening in this industry and so many countries interested in bitcoin adoption that I’m really positive,” he said at the time.

Bitfinex CTO expects bitcoin to be 'well above $50,000' by end of year

On the day of the interview, bitcoin was trading above $41,000. The first part of Ardoino’s call was correct — bitcoin did fall well below $40,000. But it never recovered.

In a follow-up email this month, Ardoino said he believes in bitcoin’s resilience and the blockchain technology underlying it.

“As mentioned, predictions are hard to make. No one could have predicted or foreseen the number of companies, well regarded by the global community, failing in such a spectacular fashion,” he told CNBC.

“Some legitimate concerns and questions remain around the future of crypto. It might be a volatile industry, but the technologies developed behind it are incredible.”

Deutsche Bank: $28,000 

A key theme in 2022 has been bitcoin’s correlation to U.S. stock indexes, especially the tech-heavy Nasdaq 100. In June, Deutsche Bank analysts published a note that said bitcoin could end the year with a price of approximately $27,000. At the time of the note, bitcoin was trading at just over $20,000.

It was based on the belief from Deutsche Bank’s equity analysts that the S&P 500 would jump to $4,750 by year-end.

But that call is unlikely to materialize.

How a $60 billion crypto collapse got regulators worried

Marion Laboure, one of the authors of Deutsche Bank’s initial report on crypto in June, said the bank now expects bitcoin to end the year around $21,000.

“High inflation, monetary tightening, and slow economic growth have likely put additional downward pressure on the crypto ecosystem,” Laboure told CNBC, adding that more traditional assets such as bonds may begin to look more attractive to investors than bitcoin.

Laboure also said high-profile collapses continue to hit sentiment.

“Every time a major player in the crypto industry fails, the ecosystem suffers a confidence crisis,” she said.

“In addition to the lack of regulation, crypto’s biggest hurdles are transparency, conflicts of interest, liquidity, and the lack of reliable available data. The FTX collapse is a reminder that these problems continue to be unresolved.”

JPMorgan: $13,000 

In a Nov. 9 research note, JPMorgan analyst Nikolaos Panigirtzoglou and his team predicted the price of bitcoin would slump to $13,000 “in the coming weeks.” They had the benefit of hindsight after the FTX liquidity crisis, which they said would cause a “new phase of crypto deleveraging,” putting downside pressure on prices.

The cost it takes miners to produce new bitcoins historically acts as a “floor” for bitcoin’s price and is likely to revisit a $13,000 low as seen over the summer months, the analysts said. That’s not as far off bitcoin’s current price as some other predictions, but it’s still much lower than Friday’s price of just under $17,000.

A JPMorgan spokesperson said Panigirtzoglou “isn’t available to comment further” on his research team’s forecast.

Absolute Strategy Research: $13,000 

Ian Harnett, co-founder and chief investment officer at macro research firm Absolute Strategy Research, warned in June that the world’s top digital currency was likely to tank as low as $13,000.

Explaining his bearish call at the time, Harnett said that, in crypto rallies past, bitcoin had subsequently tended to fall roughly 80% from all-time highs. In 2018, for instance, the token plummeted close to $3,000 after hitting a peak of nearly $20,000 in late 2017.

Harnett’s target is closer than most, but bitcoin would need to fall another 22% for it to reach that level.

Bitcoin may drop as low as $13,000 as Fed tightens, warns strategist

When asked about how he felt about the call today, Harnett said he is “very happy to suggest that we are still in the process of the bitcoin bubble deflating” and that a drop close to $13,000 is still on the cards.

“Bubbles usually see an 80% reversal,” he said in response to emailed questions.

With the U.S. Federal Reserve likely set to raise interest rates further next year, an extended drop below $13,000 to $12,000 or even $10,000 next can’t be ruled out, according to Harnett.

“Sadly, there is no intrinsic valuation model for this asset — indeed, there is no agreement whether it is a commodity or a currency — which means that there is every possibility that this could trade lower if we see tight liquidity conditions and/or a failure of other digital entities / exchanges,” he said.

Mark Mobius: $20,000 then $10,000

Carol Alexander: $10,000  

In December 2021, a month on from bitcoin’s all-time high, Carol Alexander, professor of finance at Sussex University, said she expected bitcoin to drop down to $10,000 “or even more” in 2022.

Bitcoin at the time had fallen about 30% from its near $69,000 record. Still, many crypto talking heads at the time were predicting further gains. Alexander was one of the rare voices going against the tide.

How Wall Street learned to love bitcoin

“If I were an investor now I would think about coming out of bitcoin soon because its price will probably crash next year,” she said at the time. Her bearish call rested on the idea that bitcoin has little intrinsic value and is mostly used for “speculation.”

Bitcoin didn’t quite slump as low as $10,000 — but Alexander is feeling good about her prediction. “Compared with others’ predictions, mine was by far the closest,” she said in emailed comments to CNBC.

Continue Reading

Technology

How Elon Musk’s plan to slash government agencies and regulation may benefit his empire

Published

on

By

How Elon Musk’s plan to slash government agencies and regulation may benefit his empire

Elon Musk’s business empire is sprawling. It includes electric vehicle maker Tesla, social media company X, artificial intelligence startup xAI, computer interface company Neuralink, tunneling venture Boring Company and aerospace firm SpaceX. 

Some of his ventures already benefit tremendously from federal contracts. SpaceX has received more than $19 billion from contracts with the federal government, according to research from FedScout. Under a second Trump presidency, more lucrative contracts could come its way. SpaceX is on track to take in billions of dollars annually from prime contracts with the federal government for years to come, according to FedScout CEO Geoff Orazem.

Musk, who has frequently blamed the government for stifling innovation, could also push for less regulation of his businesses. Earlier this month, Musk and former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy were tapped by Trump to lead a government efficiency group called the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.

In a recent commentary piece in the Wall Street Journal, Musk and Ramaswamy wrote that DOGE will “pursue three major kinds of reform: regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions and cost savings.” They went on to say that many existing federal regulations were never passed by Congress and should therefore be nullified, which President-elect Trump could accomplish through executive action. Musk and Ramaswamy also championed the large-scale auditing of agencies, calling out the Pentagon for failing its seventh consecutive audit. 

“The number one way Elon Musk and his companies would benefit from a Trump administration is through deregulation and defanging, you know, giving fewer resources to federal agencies tasked with oversight of him and his businesses,” says CNBC technology reporter Lora Kolodny.

To learn how else Elon Musk and his companies may benefit from having the ear of the president-elect watch the video.

Continue Reading

Technology

Why X’s new terms of service are driving some users to leave Elon Musk’s platform

Published

on

By

Why X's new terms of service are driving some users to leave Elon Musk's platform

Elon Musk attends the America First Policy Institute gala at Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, Nov. 14, 2024.

Carlos Barria | Reuters

X’s new terms of service, which took effect Nov. 15, are driving some users off Elon Musk’s microblogging platform. 

The new terms include expansive permissions requiring users to allow the company to use their data to train X’s artificial intelligence models while also making users liable for as much as $15,000 in damages if they use the platform too much. 

The terms are prompting some longtime users of the service, both celebrities and everyday people, to post that they are taking their content to other platforms. 

“With the recent and upcoming changes to the terms of service — and the return of volatile figures — I find myself at a crossroads, facing a direction I can no longer fully support,” actress Gabrielle Union posted on X the same day the new terms took effect, while announcing she would be leaving the platform.

“I’m going to start winding down my Twitter account,” a user with the handle @mplsFietser said in a post. “The changes to the terms of service are the final nail in the coffin for me.”

It’s unclear just how many users have left X due specifically to the company’s new terms of service, but since the start of November, many social media users have flocked to Bluesky, a microblogging startup whose origins stem from Twitter, the former name for X. Some users with new Bluesky accounts have posted that they moved to the service due to Musk and his support for President-elect Donald Trump.

Bluesky’s U.S. mobile app downloads have skyrocketed 651% since the start of November, according to estimates from Sensor Tower. In the same period, X and Meta’s Threads are up 20% and 42%, respectively. 

X and Threads have much larger monthly user bases. Although Musk said in May that X has 600 million monthly users, market intelligence firm Sensor Tower estimates X had 318 million monthly users as of October. That same month, Meta said Threads had nearly 275 million monthly users. Bluesky told CNBC on Thursday it had reached 21 million total users this week.

Here are some of the noteworthy changes in X’s new service terms and how they compare with those of rivals Bluesky and Threads.

Artificial intelligence training

X has come under heightened scrutiny because of its new terms, which say that any content on the service can be used royalty-free to train the company’s artificial intelligence large language models, including its Grok chatbot.

“You agree that this license includes the right for us to (i) provide, promote, and improve the Services, including, for example, for use with and training of our machine learning and artificial intelligence models, whether generative or another type,” X’s terms say.

Additionally, any “user interactions, inputs and results” shared with Grok can be used for what it calls “training and fine-tuning purposes,” according to the Grok section of the X app and website. This specific function, though, can be turned off manually. 

X’s terms do not specify whether users’ private messages can be used to train its AI models, and the company did not respond to a request for comment.

“You should only provide Content that you are comfortable sharing with others,” read a portion of X’s terms of service agreement.

Though X’s new terms may be expansive, Meta’s policies aren’t that different. 

The maker of Threads uses “information shared on Meta’s Products and services” to get its training data, according to the company’s Privacy Center. This includes “posts or photos and their captions.” There is also no direct way for users outside of the European Union to opt out of Meta’s AI training. Meta keeps training data “for as long as we need it on a case-by-case basis to ensure an AI model is operating appropriately, safely and efficiently,” according to its Privacy Center. 

Under Meta’s policy, private messages with friends or family aren’t used to train AI unless one of the users in a chat chooses to share it with the models, which can include Meta AI and AI Studio.

Bluesky, which has seen a user growth surge since Election Day, doesn’t do any generative AI training. 

“We do not use any of your content to train generative AI, and have no intention of doing so,” Bluesky said in a post on its platform Friday, confirming the same to CNBC as well.

Liquidated damages

Bluesky CEO: Our platform is 'radically different' from anything else in social media

Continue Reading

Technology

The Pentagon’s battle inside the U.S. for control of a new Cyber Force

Published

on

By

The Pentagon's battle inside the U.S. for control of a new Cyber Force

A recent Chinese cyber-espionage attack inside the nation’s major telecom networks that may have reached as high as the communications of President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect J.D. Vance was designated this week by one U.S. senator as “far and away the most serious telecom hack in our history.”

The U.S. has yet to figure out the full scope of what China accomplished, and whether or not its spies are still inside U.S. communication networks.

“The barn door is still wide open, or mostly open,” Senator Mark Warner of Virginia and chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee told the New York Times on Thursday.

The revelations highlight the rising cyberthreats tied to geopolitics and nation-state actor rivals of the U.S., but inside the federal government, there’s disagreement on how to fight back, with some advocates calling for the creation of an independent federal U.S. Cyber Force. In September, the Department of Defense formally appealed to Congress, urging lawmakers to reject that approach.

Among one of the most prominent voices advocating for the new branch is the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a national security think tank, but the issue extends far beyond any single group. In June, defense committees in both the House and Senate approved measures calling for independent evaluations of the feasibility to create a separate cyber branch, as part of the annual defense policy deliberations.

Drawing on insights from more than 75 active-duty and retired military officers experienced in cyber operations, the FDD’s 40-page report highlights what it says are chronic structural issues within the U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), including fragmented recruitment and training practices across the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.

“America’s cyber force generation system is clearly broken,” the FDD wrote, citing comments made in 2023 by then-leader of U.S. Cyber Command, Army General Paul Nakasone, who took over the role in 2018 and described current U.S. military cyber organization as unsustainable: “All options are on the table, except the status quo,” Nakasone had said.

Concern with Congress and a changing White House

The FDD analysis points to “deep concerns” that have existed within Congress for a decade — among members of both parties — about the military being able to staff up to successfully defend cyberspace. Talent shortages, inconsistent training, and misaligned missions, are undermining CYBERCOM’s capacity to respond effectively to complex cyber threats, it says. Creating a dedicated branch, proponents argue, would better position the U.S. in cyberspace. The Pentagon, however, warns that such a move could disrupt coordination, increase fragmentation, and ultimately weaken U.S. cyber readiness.

As the Pentagon doubles down on its resistance to establishment of a separate U.S. Cyber Force, the incoming Trump administration could play a significant role in shaping whether America leans toward a centralized cyber strategy or reinforces the current integrated framework that emphasizes cross-branch coordination.

Known for his assertive national security measures, Trump’s 2018 National Cyber Strategy emphasized embedding cyber capabilities across all elements of national power and focusing on cross-departmental coordination and public-private partnerships rather than creating a standalone cyber entity. At that time, the Trump’s administration emphasized centralizing civilian cybersecurity efforts under the Department of Homeland Security while tasking the Department of Defense with addressing more complex, defense-specific cyber threats. Trump’s pick for Secretary of Homeland Security, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, has talked up her, and her state’s, focus on cybersecurity.

Former Trump officials believe that a second Trump administration will take an aggressive stance on national security, fill gaps at the Energy Department, and reduce regulatory burdens on the private sector. They anticipate a stronger focus on offensive cyber operations, tailored threat vulnerability protection, and greater coordination between state and local governments. Changes will be coming at the top of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which was created during Trump’s first term and where current director Jen Easterly has announced she will leave once Trump is inaugurated.

Cyber Command 2.0 and the U.S. military

John Cohen, executive director of the Program for Countering Hybrid Threats at the Center for Internet Security, is among those who share the Pentagon’s concerns. “We can no longer afford to operate in stovepipes,” Cohen said, warning that a separate cyber branch could worsen existing silos and further isolate cyber operations from other critical military efforts.

Cohen emphasized that adversaries like China and Russia employ cyber tactics as part of broader, integrated strategies that include economic, physical, and psychological components. To counter such threats, he argued, the U.S. needs a cohesive approach across its military branches. “Confronting that requires our military to adapt to the changing battlespace in a consistent way,” he said.

In 2018, CYBERCOM certified its Cyber Mission Force teams as fully staffed, but concerns have been expressed by the FDD and others that personnel were shifted between teams to meet staffing goals — a move they say masked deeper structural problems. Nakasone has called for a CYBERCOM 2.0, saying in comments early this year “How do we think about training differently? How do we think about personnel differently?” and adding that a major issue has been the approach to military staffing within the command.

Austin Berglas, a former head of the FBI’s cyber program in New York who worked on consolidation efforts inside the Bureau, believes a separate cyber force could enhance U.S. capabilities by centralizing resources and priorities. “When I first took over the [FBI] cyber program … the assets were scattered,” said Berglas, who is now the global head of professional services at supply chain cyber defense company BlueVoyant. Centralization brought focus and efficiency to the FBI’s cyber efforts, he said, and it’s a model he believes would benefit the military’s cyber efforts as well. “Cyber is a different beast,” Berglas said, emphasizing the need for specialized training, advancement, and resource allocation that isn’t diluted by competing military priorities.

Berglas also pointed to the ongoing “cyber arms race” with adversaries like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. He warned that without a dedicated force, the U.S. risks falling behind as these nations expand their offensive cyber capabilities and exploit vulnerabilities across critical infrastructure.

Nakasone said in his comments earlier this year that a lot has changed since 2013 when U.S. Cyber Command began building out its Cyber Mission Force to combat issues like counterterrorism and financial cybercrime coming from Iran. “Completely different world in which we live in today,” he said, citing the threats from China and Russia.

Brandon Wales, a former executive director of the CISA, said there is the need to bolster U.S. cyber capabilities, but he cautions against major structural changes during a period of heightened global threats.

“A reorganization of this scale is obviously going to be disruptive and will take time,” said Wales, who is now vice president of cybersecurity strategy at SentinelOne.

He cited China’s preparations for a potential conflict over Taiwan as a reason the U.S. military needs to maintain readiness. Rather than creating a new branch, Wales supports initiatives like Cyber Command 2.0 and its aim to enhance coordination and capabilities within the existing structure. “Large reorganizations should always be the last resort because of how disruptive they are,” he said.

Wales says it’s important to ensure any structural changes do not undermine integration across military branches and recognize that coordination across existing branches is critical to addressing the complex, multidomain threats posed by U.S. adversaries. “You should not always assume that centralization solves all of your problems,” he said. “We need to enhance our capabilities, both defensively and offensively. This isn’t about one solution; it’s about ensuring we can quickly see, stop, disrupt, and prevent threats from hitting our critical infrastructure and systems,” he added.

Continue Reading

Trending