What to Know

  • Hut 8 co-founder Marc van der Chijs has become increasingly worried that artificial intelligence development is advancing faster than humans can control.
  • He says competition among companies and nation-states has created a race in which slowing down is difficult for any single participant.
  • Van der Chijs believes AI could expose weaknesses in legacy banking software and potentially affect financial systems or critical infrastructure.
  • He has shifted much of his investment focus from bitcoin into AI, but he is now allocating some AI profits back into crypto, largely through exchange-traded funds.
  • He still describes bitcoin as the single asset he would choose to hold for the rest of his life.
  • Van der Chijs expects AI and robotics could eventually perform 90% to 95% of existing jobs, potentially forcing governments to rethink revenue models.
  • He sees AI data centers as a stronger business opportunity than bitcoin mining and views Hut 8’s pivot toward AI infrastructure as a major strategic move.

AI Optimism Meets a Sharper Warning

Hut 8 co-founder Marc van der Chijs is sounding a more cautious note on artificial intelligence, even as he remains convinced that the technology could reshape the global economy. His concern is not that AI lacks commercial promise. Instead, it is that the pace of development has become so intense that governments, companies and investors may be underestimating the risks to financial systems, infrastructure and social stability.

Van der Chijs, an early bitcoin investor who entered the market in 2013, has compared the current AI moment with bitcoin’s earlier breakout phase. In both cases, he sees a technology with the potential to upend established models. Yet his tone around AI has shifted. He has said he has become more of a “doomer” recently, reflecting a growing fear that the technology is advancing faster than governance structures can adapt.

His warning centers on a competitive dynamic that is now visible across the technology sector and between major economies. Companies building frontier models are racing to release more capable systems, while governments are reluctant to fall behind rivals. In that environment, restraint can look like weakness. Van der Chijs argues that this creates a structural trap: even if some executives or policymakers believe development should slow, the pressure to keep pace makes coordinated restraint extremely difficult.

Banking Systems and Infrastructure in Focus

One of the most significant risks, in his view, is the possibility that AI exposes vulnerabilities in legacy banking systems. Modern finance depends on layers of interconnected software, payment networks, risk models and institutional trust. If advanced AI systems can identify or exploit weak points more quickly than banks and regulators can respond, confidence in those institutions could come under pressure.

That concern extends beyond banks. Critical infrastructure increasingly depends on digital systems, automation and networked controls. AI could make those systems more efficient, but it could also magnify vulnerabilities if powerful tools are misused, poorly contained or deployed faster than safeguards are built. Van der Chijs has suggested that a major disruption may be required before governments fully cooperate on international guardrails.

The warning echoes a broader debate in the technology world: whether the biggest AI risk is misuse by bad actors, accidental failure from systems operating beyond human understanding, or competitive overdeployment before adequate testing. For markets, the distinction matters less than the shared implication. If AI becomes deeply embedded in banking, logistics, energy and communications, failures may no longer be isolated technology events. They could become macroeconomic shocks.

Why Bitcoin Still Matters in an AI Cycle

Despite his concerns, Van der Chijs has not abandoned AI as an investment theme. He has moved much of his portfolio away from bitcoin and into AI, reflecting his belief that the technology can produce enormous value. At the same time, he is now moving some AI profits back into crypto, mainly through exchange-traded funds. That shift suggests a more balanced approach after a period in which AI captured a large share of investor attention.

His view of bitcoin remains notably strong. Even after selling a large amount of BTC to pursue AI opportunities, he still describes bitcoin as the asset he would choose if he could hold only one for the rest of his life. That framing places bitcoin in a different category from venture-style AI exposure. AI may offer explosive growth potential, but bitcoin, in his view, retains a long-term monetary role.

Market participants have debated whether AI capital flows have weighed on bitcoin during the current cycle. Van der Chijs believes investors redirecting funds toward AI helped keep BTC below the $200,000 to $250,000 levels he and others had expected. That argument reflects a broader capital allocation question: when one transformative theme absorbs investor attention, another may receive less marginal demand, even if its long-term thesis remains intact.

For crypto investors, the point is not simply that AI competed with bitcoin for capital. It is that bitcoin may continue to be valued as a hedge against institutional fragility, currency debasement concerns and centralized system failures. If worries about AI-driven disruption grow, some investors may see BTC as part of a resilience strategy rather than only a speculative growth asset.

AI Data Centers Versus Bitcoin Mining

Van der Chijs also sees a stronger business case for AI infrastructure than for bitcoin mining. Hut 8 began as a bitcoin mining company, but the economics of high-performance computing and AI data centers have become increasingly attractive as demand for compute capacity rises. In his personal view, Hut 8’s move into AI was highly favorable, and he has said that if he were running the company today, he would favor allocating entirely to AI data centers.

The comparison is important because bitcoin mining and AI infrastructure both compete for energy, sites, specialized hardware and operational expertise. Bitcoin miners convert power into network security and newly issued BTC, while AI data centers sell compute capacity into an enterprise and technology market hungry for model training and inference. The revenue profiles, customer bases and market narratives differ, even when the physical infrastructure overlaps.

For companies with access to energy and data center capabilities, AI can appear more flexible and commercially diversified. However, bitcoin mining retains a unique connection to the BTC network and can offer direct exposure to bitcoin’s price cycle. The choice between the two reflects a deeper strategic question: whether infrastructure operators want to anchor their future in decentralized monetary networks, centralized AI demand, or some mix of both.

Jobs, Costs and Government Revenue

Van der Chijs’s economic outlook for AI is sweeping. He believes AI and robotics could eventually perform 90% to 95% of existing jobs. If that scenario develops, the implications would be enormous for wages, taxation, consumption and political systems. Automation at that scale would not only transform companies; it would challenge the way governments fund themselves.

He has suggested that governments may need to consider new revenue sources, including taxes on robots or AI token usage. The logic is straightforward: if employment declines sharply or work changes dramatically, traditional income-tax systems could become less effective. Governments would then need to find ways to tax production, automation, or AI-driven economic activity.

Still, collection would not be simple. Locally run AI models could complicate enforcement, especially if powerful systems operate outside centralized platforms. That raises difficult policy questions. Taxing AI usage might be feasible when activity flows through large providers, but much harder when models are distributed, self-hosted or embedded into private systems. The result could be a long period of regulatory experimentation.

Not Every AI Bet Looks Equal

Van der Chijs remains bullish on AI’s long-term potential, but he does not view every AI investment as attractive at current valuations. He has indicated that over the next five years, companies such as Tesla and SpaceX could outperform Anthropic, even while he believes leading AI developers may eventually become the world’s largest companies. That distinction matters for investors watching a crowded AI trade.

The AI market has produced enthusiasm around model developers, chipmakers, data centers, software platforms and robotics companies. But transformative technology does not guarantee that every asset linked to the theme will perform equally. Valuation, execution, capital intensity, regulatory pressure and competitive positioning can all determine outcomes. In other words, believing in AI does not require buying every AI-related investment at any price.

That is also why bitcoin’s role in his thinking stands out. BTC is not a claim on a company, a data center, a model developer or a product roadmap. It is a scarce digital asset with a fixed monetary thesis. For investors concerned that AI may create both extraordinary productivity and extraordinary instability, bitcoin can occupy a separate bucket: not a bet on AI success, but a hedge against the systemic consequences of a rapidly changing digital economy.

A Market Signal for Crypto Investors

Van der Chijs’s shift back toward some crypto exposure is notable because it comes from an investor who has embraced AI rather than rejected it. He is not warning that AI has no value. He is warning that the technology’s value and its risks are expanding together. That nuance is critical for crypto markets, where narratives often swing between extremes.

For BTC holders, the takeaway is that bitcoin’s long-term appeal may strengthen if trust in centralized systems becomes more fragile. Banking software, institutional infrastructure and government policy are all potential pressure points in an AI-driven world. If advanced systems increase the speed at which vulnerabilities appear, investors may place a higher premium on assets that are transparent, decentralized and resistant to unilateral control.

At the same time, the AI boom may continue to compete with bitcoin for capital. If investors believe AI offers the strongest growth opportunity, BTC may face periods of relative underallocation. But as Van der Chijs’s own portfolio shift suggests, profits from AI can also rotate back into crypto, especially when investors seek diversification away from a single crowded theme.

The bigger story is not a simple rivalry between bitcoin and artificial intelligence. It is the emergence of a financial landscape where both matter. AI may transform labor, infrastructure and corporate value creation. Bitcoin may continue to serve as a monetary asset for investors seeking durability outside traditional systems. The tension between those two ideas is likely to shape capital flows well beyond the current market cycle.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Who is Marc van der Chijs?

Marc van der Chijs is an entrepreneur and co-founder of Hut 8, a company originally associated with bitcoin mining that has expanded its focus toward artificial intelligence infrastructure.

What is his main concern about artificial intelligence?

His main concern is that AI development is moving faster than humans and governments can control, driven by competition among companies and nation-states that makes it difficult for any participant to slow down alone.

Why does he think banks could be vulnerable?

He believes AI could expose weaknesses in legacy banking software and interconnected financial systems, potentially threatening confidence in institutions that rely on complex digital infrastructure.

Has he stopped believing in bitcoin?

No. Although he sold a significant amount of bitcoin to invest in AI, he still says bitcoin is the one asset he would choose to hold for the rest of his life.

Why is he moving some profits back into crypto?

He is allocating some AI profits back into crypto, primarily through exchange-traded funds, as part of a broader portfolio shift after AI investments became a major focus.

What does he think AI could do to jobs?

He believes AI and robotics could eventually perform 90% to 95% of existing jobs, which would have major consequences for employment, taxation and government revenue models.

Why are AI data centers important to his outlook?

He sees AI data centers as a stronger business opportunity than bitcoin mining because demand for computing infrastructure is rising as AI models and applications require more capacity.

Does he think all AI investments are attractive?

No. He remains positive on AI’s long-term potential but has cautioned that not every AI investment looks attractive at current valuations, and he expects performance to vary across companies.

How could this affect bitcoin markets?

If AI risks increase concern about centralized infrastructure and financial systems, some investors may view bitcoin as a long-term resilience asset, even as AI continues to compete with BTC for capital.