Learn more about BPI Senior Fellow Craig Warmke in the latest installment of our Meet the Fellows series.
What do you do for work?
I’m a professor at Northern Illinois University. This semester, I’m teaching classes on epistemology and the philosophy of mathematics.
How did you wind up in your current role?
Through a mix of good luck and determination. The job market for academic philosophers is brutal. As I was finishing my PhD at UNC-Chapel Hill, I had interviews at some great institutions, but two major issues worked against me.
First, I hadn’t done any public speaking in years due to severe anxiety. Second, my two campus fly-outs were scheduled back-to-back, and on the way to the first, I came down with the worst headache of my life. It turned out to be the flu. On the morning of my first interview—a grueling 12-hour process—I woke up at 4:30 AM, writhing in pain. I powered through both fly-outs while sick, but by the second one, I had nothing left in the tank. It pains me to think about how poorly I must have performed.
I’m fortunate to be at NIU, not only because I earned my MA in philosophy here (as did another BPI fellow, Troy Cross), but also because I find meaning in teaching. NIU’s program is designed for students who lack a philosophy background or whose undergraduate institutions lack prestige but still aspire to top PhD programs. I relate to their struggles and see myself in them. It’s a long, often lonely road. You have to love ideas—otherwise, the poverty-level wages make little sense, especially for young families.
How did you become interested in researching Bitcoin?
In late 2017, I saw a social media debate between my then-colleague at NIU, Geoff Pynn, and my future collaborator, Bradley Rettler, about whether Bitcoin was a bubble. That question hooked me, and I quickly fell down the rabbit hole.
Bitcoin caught me at a sensitive time. Interest in my subfields was dwindling, and I was searching for a way to meet smart, interesting people. I had also spent years working on a rigorous formal project that never gained much traction. I needed something else to avoid going mad.
Then, in spring 2019, I gave a talk on Bitcoin at a philosophy conference. Bradley Rettler was in the audience. Since I had already been discussing Bitcoin with Andrew Bailey—his best friend—we started a Bitcoin-centric group chat. Around the same time, I had written a book proposal called Cryptorama, but my own university wouldn’t fund it. In hindsight, that was a blessing. After a year of co-authoring articles with Rettler and Bailey, we planned the book that became Resistance Money—a much better book than the one I would have written alone.
What are your most significant intellectual interests aside from Bitcoin?
Although most of my research now revolves around Bitcoin, I still have broad philosophical interests in language, mathematics, metaphysics, epistemology, and early modern philosophy (especially Leibniz and Berkeley). I also publish papers on theological topics from time to time. Since discovering Bitcoin, I’ve been reading a lot more economics.
The world is deeply mysterious, and I know so little. Discovering Bitcoin has pushed me to become more of a generalist.
Have your views on Bitcoin and cryptocurrency changed over time?
Yes. Let me explain with an analogy. Converts to Orthodox Christianity are often advised to remain silent on matters of faith for a while because, in their initial zeal, they may do more harm than good. Similarly, if not for the slow, deliberate nature of academic research, I probably needed someone to tell me to keep quiet for a couple of years after discovering Bitcoin.
At first, I was overly optimistic about alternative crypto networks. I thought, for example, that Iota’s directed acyclic graph might amount to something (it didn’t). I also remember telling my department chair about Neo, “the Chinese Ethereum.” Thankfully, I kept my opinions private until I had subjected my early ideas to rigorous scrutiny.
What misconception about Bitcoin do you hear most from your colleagues?
Outside my department, most academics don’t understand Bitcoin’s usefulness. I believe the root cause is twofold:
1. A tendency to favor state-sanctioned solutions.
2. A belief that global institutions are as trustworthy as those in the U.S.
Since Bitcoin is non-state money, the first tendency leads academics to distrust it reflexively. The second tendency is simply incorrect—it contradicts extensive empirical data. It also blinds academics to Bitcoin’s value as a non-state solution for those suffering under authoritarian regimes, high inflation, and inadequate financial infrastructure.
At a deeper level, I suspect academics dismiss Bitcoin for social reasons. Bitcoin is considered low status—primarily because the “wrong” people believe in it. That alone makes it unworthy of investigation in their eyes.
What misconception about Bitcoin or your research do you hear most from Bitcoin enthusiasts?
Many Bitcoin enthusiasts believe it can solve a broad range of societal problems that it never will. They assume that if we abolished the Fed, the dollar, and its 2% inflation target, many of the world’s problems would simply disappear.
I respect many of these people—they are often intelligent and well-intentioned—but on this, they are mistaken. They’re leading their followers toward inevitable disappointment. Many of these issues persist because we live in a world of scarce resources, imperfect people, and policies with fundamental tradeoffs. Bitcoin will never change these realities—it is not a panacea.
However, Bitcoin does mitigate serious problems for millions worldwide, including authoritarianism, hyperinflation, and inadequate financial infrastructure. For designing such a solution, Satoshi deserves all sorts of accolades—the Turing Award, the Nobel Peace Prize, the Nobel Prize in Economics. But he isn’t Jesus.
What are your hopes for the future of BPI?
For too long, we’ve had a fake news ouroboros—academics, media, and policymakers recycling their own poorly researched ideas about Bitcoin. BPI provides an alternative:
• It gives policymakers in DC access to more reliable research from academics and industry experts.
• It helps academics and practitioners understand the concerns of those in DC.
I expect BPI will continue growing in exciting ways, especially now that we’ve established a physical presence in Washington.
Favorite novel?
Laurus, by Eugene Vodolozkin
Who is your biggest intellectual influence?
Gottfried Leibniz
