NYC's Crypto Bond: Risky Bet or Desperate Hail Mary?

Right now, Mayor Adams is looking to gamble your tax dollars on Bitcoin. Let's be blunt: is this visionary leadership, or a reckless roll of the dice with the city's future? Is this innovation or insanity?

Schools or Satoshis: What's the Priority?

Think about it. Each dollar you choose to fund Bitbond could be better used to help repair and replace our aging schools. Or fix our overcrowded subways, or build more affordable housing for families living paycheck to paycheck. Now picture Ava, a single mom with the opportunity to work remotely in one of her jobs. Her children depend on after-school programs that are perpetually on the chopping block. Does she really care about Mayor Adams' "visionary" crypto scheme when her children's future is on the line?

This isn't about being anti-innovation. It's about priorities. After all, the city’s first duty is to its own citizens. It should not be demand driven by the latest trend in the crypto markets. As you might imagine, the emotional stakes of this issue are especially high, as it relates directly to the health and safety of the average New Yorker.

Transparency? What Transparency?

Comptroller Brad Lander’s opposition should be a huge red flag. He calls the plan "legally dubious and fiscally irresponsible." He points out the glaring omission: the Mayor's office didn't even bother consulting with him. What's that about?

• Lack of consultation = Lack of transparency
• Lack of transparency = Potential for hidden agendas

Might Mayor Adams be leveraging the Bitbond proposal to court the crypto industry as a whole? Such a step would certainly improve his legacy and bolster his political donations as he gears up for a tough re-election in 2026. Mr. Mayor, do you care more about what’s best for New York City or what’s best for Eric Adams?

To this day, it’s shocking to many, the parallel with the 2008 financial crisis. You know, those things that were so complicated that we were told nothing could go wrong with them. How well did that work out for either middle class or working class Americans? This Bitbond proposal sounds awfully familiar too – an opaque financial instrument with catastrophic implications if shit hits the fan.

Innovation or Irresponsibility: Which Path?

Brian Estes, CIO at Off the Chain Capital, has written that the risk is greatly reduced if an institution allocates as low as 1% of their portfolio into Bitcoin. Even 1% of the city’s budget is no small potatoes. Bitcoin’s volatility, let’s be frank, is the stuff of legend. What happens when Bitcoin crashes again? Will the city now have to drain its reserve fund or slash funding for essential services to offset the hit?

The argumentation is surprising in here, like comparing change as having the same connection to financial innovation as, for example, pre-1971 gold money market bonds. Estes contends this is a contemporary version of a “hard money standard.” However, despite the variations in gold prices, it doesn’t come anywhere close to that of Bitcoin’s drastic volatility.

There’s something about the crypto craze that has caught everyone’s attention. Reform the tax code to improve collection, reduce all wasteful spending, and reinvest savings into infrastructure projects that create jobs and economic growth while increasing future revenues. Though not as attention-grabbing as a Bitbond, they might actually be in a better position to produce tangible outcomes. This new, highly transparent, and participative approach overpromises sustainable benefits for every New Yorker.

NYC needs pragmatic solutions, not pie-in-the-sky schemes. It's time to demand accountability and ensure that our city's financial future is built on a solid foundation, not on the shifting sands of the crypto market. Let's make sure Mayor Adams knows that New Yorkers won't stand for reckless gambles with our hard-earned money.