W
hen simultaneous lockdowns began worldwide in March 2020, the crisis scenarios predicted by economists largely materialized; unemployment increased, consumption contracted and supply chains were disrupted. However, this same process also accelerated an unexpected transformation. As people were confined to their homes, work, social life and money all transitioned behind the screen. This relocation was not merely a practical adaptation but a fundamental reorganization of humanity’s relationship with the world.
Global internet traffic recorded an average increase of 40 percent in the first half of 2020. Video conferencing platforms, electronic commerce sites and digital finance applications gained millions of new users. According to a report by the McKinsey Global Institute, the pandemic advanced digital transformation by five to seven years across multiple sectors. However, this acceleration was not the product of a controlled and planned transition; it was a leap born out of necessity. Consequently, the vulnerabilities it introduced were just as vast as the opportunities.
The rapid expansion of digital finance profoundly disrupted the relationship people have with money. Traditional financial actions such as visiting a bank, trading through a broker and filling out paperwork gave way to instantaneous, invisible and effortless transactions. Money became a mere digit on a screen. This abstraction also brought with it an illusion of ease, earning money began to seem as effortless and even as entertaining, as spending it.
From a neuroscientific perspective, this process is directly related to the human mind’s perception of risk. Studies conducted by researchers at Stanford University indicate that loss aversion weakens when financial decisions are made through digital interfaces rather than in tangible environments. Along this spectrum advancing from physical money to plastic cards and ultimately to abstract numbers, individuals become increasingly inclined to take higher risks. The fact that a vast majority of society encountered investment instruments either for the first time or intensively during the pandemic coincided exactly with this underlying landscape.
The foundational promise of the cryptocurrency ecosystem was decentralization. The white paper authored in 2008 by the figure known as Satoshi Nakamoto, whose true identity and whereabouts remain a mystery, aimed to eliminate intermediary institutions in the financial system and enable direct, equal and transparent money transfers between individuals. Blockchain technology was presented as the infrastructure that fulfilled this promise. Records were kept in an encrypted format across a distributed network and no single central authority could independently intervene in this network.
From a theoretical perspective, this architecture was presented primarily on social media platforms as a protective mechanism against state oppression and inflation and interestingly, recommendation algorithms placed this narrative in front of millions of people time and time again. Cryptocurrencies were marketed as both a safe haven and a symbol of resistance against the current system, particularly in countries where people had lost faith in their own national currency. Thanks to social media platforms, this perception eventually transformed into a reality embraced by users.
However, the reality in practice painted a very different picture. Although the blockchain infrastructure remained decentralized, the cryptocurrency market gradually evolved into centralized structures. Major exchanges such as Binance, Coinbase and FTX transformed into multinational corporations that control the vast majority of the global volume. A similar concentration occurred on the supply side of the cryptocurrency market. By the end of 2021, calculations showed that approximately 80 percent of the circulating supply of Bitcoin was held by only 2 percent of the total holders. This structure clearly contradicted the claim of democratization put forward by cryptocurrencies.
In other words, while the technology itself was ostensibly decentralized, from a political economy perspective, the market possessed a power asymmetry dominated by major players. Individual investors considered themselves free within this structure, but in reality, they were participating in a game where they could not determine the prices, liquidity or timing. This paradox constitutes a critical foundation for understanding how the easy money vibe operates.
Prior to the pandemic, Bitcoin was trading at approximately 7,300 dollars. Throughout the pandemic year of 2020, prices began to climb alongside investor interest, driven particularly by the recommendation algorithms of social media platforms and by November 2021, Bitcoin reached 69,000 dollars. This corresponded to an increase of approximately 840 percent. Other major coins, notably Ethereum, recorded similar and even steeper increases. According to an analysis published in 2021 by researchers from Columbia Law School, the total value of cryptocurrency markets was under 200 billion dollars at the onset of the pandemic. By November 2021, this figure had skyrocketed to 3 trillion dollars.
This staggering surge transformed into a narrative. Social media emerged as the most powerful amplifier of that narrative. On Twitter, Instagram and TikTok, stories of individuals becoming rich overnight, accounts claiming to have discovered legendary coins early and portfolio screenshots updated almost daily generated a mass sentiment: Fear of Missing Out or FOMO. A qualitative study conducted by researchers from Selcuk University focusing on cryptocurrency investors revealed that the vast majority of participants discovered this market through social media and their social circles. No one had read a technical paper but they had caught a particular vibe. In other words, individuals were making decisions through their System 1 thinking, acting entirely intuitively and devoid of rationality, yet they perceived themselves as rational decision makers.
Türkiye was one of the countries where this process unfolded most vividly. According to the data, as of 2024, Türkiye ranked third globally in cryptocurrency ownership relative to its population, with almost one fifth of the population holding crypto assets. An academic study conducted in 2023 utilizing a logit model analysis on a sample of 947 individuals revealed that 29,4 percent of the respondents invested in crypto assets. The most frequently cited motivation among investors took the form of statements such as “my income is insufficient” or “I want to earn more income.” In other words, a significant portion of those entering the market opened this door not with a technical expectation but driven by the motive to earn more.
Beginning in late 2021, cryptocurrency markets entered a severe downturn. By the summer of 2022, the total market capitalization plummeted from 3 trillion dollars to below 900 billion dollars. Many altcoins lost 90 percent or more of their value. The bankruptcy of FTX, the collapse of Terra and Luna and the successive liquidity crises initiated a brutal liquidation process in which ordinary investors exited the market with massive losses.
At this point, the global monetary policy of the pandemic era requires a separate evaluation. The United States announced a COVID relief package of approximately 5,2 trillion dollars between 2020 and 2021, while the Federal Reserve carried out 4,5 trillion dollars of quantitative easing through bond purchases. According to an analysis published on Nasdaq, the total volume of new money injected into circulation reached 13 trillion dollars by the middle of 2021, constituting an unprecedented sum in historical terms. Normally, a money supply expansion of this magnitude would have triggered severe inflation. However, this time, a portion of the excess liquidity was channeled into global asset markets via digital interfaces, with the cryptocurrency ecosystem functioning as one of the major destinations for this influx.
The ability of cryptocurrency markets to attract the masses was achieved by rapidly inflating the value of certain coins during the period referred to as the bull market phase. The value of some coins multiplied astronomically, and all of these developments were subjected to intense propaganda. The fact that internationally recognized figures such as Elon Musk traded in the cryptocurrency market, launched coins, made positive statements regarding the markets and expressed optimistic expectations heavily captivated the masses.
During this period, a multitude of social media influencers, some operating behind anonymous profiles, emerged to conduct cryptocurrency analyses and offer purchasing recommendations. While not applicable to all of them, a vast majority of these profiles were actually executing paid promotions for coins or artificially inflating the value of their own assets. Their vocalization of expectations for an uninterrupted upward trend in this manner, coupled with the intermittent rise of the coins they recommended, constituted the primary reasons why individuals flocked to these markets.
For investors in economies like Türkiye, the mechanism operated as follows, as the Turkish Lira depreciated, individuals converted their savings first into dollars and subsequently into crypto assets pegged to the dollar. These crypto assets were purchased predominantly in dollars through exchanges headquartered in or regulated by the United States. The capital effectively exited the country. When the price of a coin purchased for 80 dollars by a user from Türkiye dropped to 20 dollars, 60 dollars out of the initial 80 dollars that had left the country vanished with no possibility of return. When this scenario is multiplied across millions of users and hundreds of different assets, a concrete picture emerged demonstrating that tens of billions of dollars in value draining from countries like Türkiye ultimately financed Western markets.
This process represents a narrative not merely of individual losses, but of a structural capital transfer. The 2021 Global Financial Stability Report published by the IMF clearly documents that crypto assets can be utilized as a mechanism for transferring money across borders, particularly in countries experiencing capital flow restrictions. Therefore, the culpability for the regulatory vacuum lies not solely in the naive faith of individual investors, but within the structures that deliberately preserve this vacuum.
After the coin markets collapsed, what remained were not merely emptied wallets but also a deeply entrenched psychological pattern. Regardless of how much they lost, individuals fell into an endless cycle of hope, trading and loss, believing that their next transaction would be successful and yield substantial profits. Naturally, the drive to compensate for their losses was an important triggering factor in this process. This psychological mechanism also coincides with what behavioral economics refers to as the tin can theory. Individuals attempting to recover their losses tend to enter increasingly high-risk positions.
Right at this exact juncture, leveraged trading emerged as the “solution” presented by the market. Leverage ratios reaching up to 100 on platforms such as Binance and similar venues opened a new space where taking a massive position with minimal capital appeared feasible. An investor could open a position worth 10 thousand dollars using merely 100 dollars. However, the mathematics behind this striking facade was exceptionally ruthless.
That same leverage ratio meant that even a minor price movement, for example, if the value of a coin traded at 100x dropped by just 1 percent, would be sufficient to wipe out the entire capital. A study published on ScienceDirect comparing investor behaviors across various countries documents the overlapping characteristics of leveraged crypto trading and gambling: the illusion of control, the continuation of trading despite serial losses, the loss of control over time and money and secrecy. The interviews we conducted with three individuals who experienced bankruptcy in this context served as a prime example completely corroborating this situation.
The survey conducted by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) of the United Kingdom in 2019 is highly striking. When British citizens who purchased cryptocurrencies were asked about their motivations, the most frequent response, at 31 percent, was “gambling.” This ranked far ahead of technical interest or ideological commitment. The qualitative interviews we conducted in Türkiye with individuals engaging in coin trading at an addiction level share a similar finding. A significant portion of the participants consciously defined cryptocurrency trading as a new risk-taking practice that replaced traditional forms of gambling, particularly betting and sports wagers. This mindset created an exceptionally fragile foundation in leveraged trading.
With the decline of cryptocurrency markets, the unfulfilled pursuit of easy money flowed into other channels. Virtual gambling emerged as the largest of these channels. The picture in Türkiye is even more striking. From a legal framework perspective, online gambling has been prohibited in Türkiye since 2007 and access to foreign gambling websites is restricted. However, these restrictions constitute merely a technical barrier. With the widespread adoption of VPN usage and cryptocurrency payments lowering the threshold of traceability, this barrier is easily bypassed.
From a psychological perspective, this transition is significant. A comprehensive review study published in Frontiers in Psychology examining trading and gambling behaviors during the COVID pandemic era documents the overlapping characteristics between excessive cryptocurrency trading and pathological gambling; increasingly larger bets placed to chase losses, the need to conceal the activity, the disruption of family and professional life and most importantly, the inability to quit despite negative consequences.
Researchers assert that the diagnostic criteria for individuals engaging in excessive cryptocurrency trading and gamblers overlap substantially. They suggest that a diagnosis of pathological gambling can easily be applied to these groups. It was observed that leveraged trading was utilized in all four of the interviews we conducted and although all four individuals initially gained profits in their trades, their losses subsequently increased exponentially. Furthermore, it was observed that three out of these four individuals attempted to compensate for their losses by engaging in virtual gambling.
Brain physiology supports this tendency. The sudden cycles of rise and fall experienced in the crypto market stimulate the nucleus accumbens, namely the reward center of the brain, by disabling the prefrontal cortex. This functionally overlaps with the mechanism triggered by addictive substances. Price charts updated constantly throughout the day, profit and loss notifications and the 24-hour open market structure continuously keep the stimulus and reward cycle alive. Virtual gambling platforms deliberately exploit this physiological vulnerability by design. Interestingly, TikTok, which triggers this phenomenon on social media, has also developed a recommendation algorithm targeting the reward center of the brain.
The social consequences have now extended far beyond mere numbers. The significant increase in debt items originating from cryptocurrency and gambling in bankruptcy cases, the proliferation of crypto related cases in execution and foreclosure proceedings, the association of domestic conflicts with these losses, and the connection of suicide cases, which are rarely disclosed to the public, to this background all constitute the final links of the same process. Explaining these outcomes through individual vulnerability is a moral illusion that obscures the structural causes.
It is possible to summarize the analytical chain followed throughout this article as follows: Pandemic conditions necessitated digitalization. It would perhaps be more accurate to state that this developed as an imposition of the global system rather than a mere necessity. Digitalization closed the distance to money and paralyzed the perception of risk, albeit temporarily. Global money printing processes presented a new asset class to the world economy experiencing increased liquidity: Cryptocurrency.
This asset class proliferated not as a technical instrument but as a narrative of hope. The recommendation algorithms of social media platforms actively promoted accounts and posts disseminating cryptocurrency propaganda. Individuals were not actually pursuing a genuine prospect of profit; rather, they were being drawn toward the exact points where whale investors holding the vast majority of crypto assets would execute mass liquidations, which is to say, into a trap.
Even following the decline of coins, the easy money vibe did not perish; rather, it channeled into leveraged trading and from there into virtual gambling. This occurred because the habit had firmly established itself independently of the underlying asset. This time, the screen replaced the table, the chart replaced the deck and the algorithm replaced the croupier. Yet the sensation remained identical: Just one more move.
The issue that demands debate today is neither coin prices nor which website ought to be blocked. The fundamental matter is this: When the concept of effortless gain takes root so deeply, how can a social structure centered on labor be sustained? Without providing an answer to this inquiry, legal regulations will merely grapple with the visible surface of the system. They will fail to halt the gears turning within minds.
A specific scenario is at play, one that is fundamentally massified through the promise of rapid wealth and the legends prominently featured on social media, because grand transformations that cannot be massified are unsustainable, reflecting the famous Legitimacy Principle of Habermas. The conclusion of the debate regarding whether the pandemic was a fabrication remains unknown. However, the global order, seizing the pandemic as an opportunity, transitioned humanity into a new era: The digital age. While executing this transition, it exploited one of the most fundamental human drives, namely the desire to make money easily.
Although the result has currently assumed a condition analogous to that of Oblomov, a new narrative became widespread concurrently with the decline of humanity: Artificial intelligence. Right at this point in the story, assuming that artificial intelligence is a transformation intended to facilitate human life is merely the product of another fiction; in reality, a system aiming to replace humanity is being constructed. Precisely at this juncture, the decline of humanity was perhaps one of the sufficient conditions. Is this decline the herald of another rise, or the renewed beginning of a novel yet ancient conflict? We will attempt to examine this in a subsequent article.
(Originally published in Turkish by Kriter)
Stay informed by subscribing to
our weekly newsletter.
