On 3 July 2024, Ben Armstrong, also known as BitBoy Crypto, made a bold statement on the social media platform X (formerly known as Twitter). Armstrong declared that Polkadot (DOT) and Cardano (ADA) are no longer viable investments for institutions, suggesting that this perception would ultimately undermine their legitimacy.

Armstrong is a notable figure in the cryptocurrency community. He rose to prominence through his YouTube channel, which offered crypto education and investment advice. Over time, Armstrong has faced various allegations and legal challenges. In August 2023, he was removed from his company, Hit Network, which managed the BitBoy Crypto brand. More recently, on 3 July 2024, he announced the discontinuation of his daily live streams due to financial and legal pressures​

Armstrong’s Statement

Armstrong expressed his opinion that institutional investors have lost interest in Polkadot and Cardano, which he believes will lead to their decline as legitimate investments.

However, he acknowledged that both cryptocurrencies could still generate profits during the current market cycle, albeit with so-so returns:

I want to be clear. Recently, I said $DOT & $ADA are both dead to institutions. Which ultimately will lead to their death as legitimate investments. This DOES NOT mean they won’t pump and offer returns to investors in this bull run. They will. Returns will just be mid.

The Crypto Community’s Response

Armstrong’s statement quickly drew sharp rebuttals from prominent members of the Cardano community, who took to X to defend their projects.

Here is a summary of their responses:

One community member found it ironic that Armstrong declared Polkadot and Cardano as “dead” despite their robust governance mechanisms, which are designed for long-term sustainability and flexibility.

Another respondent highlighted Cardano’s extensive on-chain governance system, backed by a substantial fund and one of the most active communities in the crypto space. They argued that such engagement contradicts the idea that these projects are no longer viable.

A different user bluntly dismissed Armstrong’s statement as unfounded and nonsensical.

Another emphasized that Cardano’s primary focus is on user adoption rather than venture capital funds. They noted that investments often follow the network effect, meaning a strong community and solid technology will attract real users and, eventually, institutional investments.

An additional response argued that cryptocurrency’s primary purpose is to serve people, not institutions. They criticized the mentality that a project’s value is solely determined by rising prices.

One user expressed disbelief at Armstrong’s claims, suggesting that Armstrong’s perspective might be influenced by personal biases or misunderstandings.

Another community member questioned the technical basis of Armstrong’s opinion, emphasizing Cardano’s strong track record of uptime, self-governance, and a dedicated community. They argued that these factors make Cardano a viable and sustainable blockchain.

Lastly, one user suggested that Armstrong’s negative comments might stem from personal grievances, implying that his opinions are not objective.


Armstrong’s comments sparked a vigorous defense from the Cardano community, highlighting several key points:

  1. Governance Mechanisms: Cardano and Polkadot are praised for their strong governance frameworks, which are seen as essential for long-term sustainability and flexibility. Community members argue that these mechanisms ensure robust participation and adaptability, countering Armstrong’s claim that they are “dead.”
  2. Community Engagement: Cardano’s supporters emphasize the project’s strong and active community, which is crucial for the network’s success. They argue that engaged communities can drive adoption and innovation, making the project attractive to both individual users and institutional investors.
  3. Technological Strengths: Cardano’s proponents highlight its technological capabilities, such as its energy efficiency, self-sovereignty, and proven uptime. These attributes, they argue, are significant draws for both users and institutions, contrary to Armstrong’s assertions.
  4. Institutional Interest: While Armstrong claimed that DOT and ADA are “dead to institutions,” community members pointed out that institutional interest is not the sole determinant of a project’s success. They argue that a strong network effect and real user adoption are equally, if not more, important.

Featured Image via Unsplash