Value investor Li Lu, often referred to as “China’s Buffett,” offered a blunt forecast for cryptocurrency at Columbia Business School’s 36th Annual Graham & Dodd Event on October 15, 2026. Lu described crypto as fake and predicted that digital assets will eventually disappear without any external push.
Core argument: no sovereign enforcement
Lu’s critique centered on a single structural point: crypto, in his view, lacks “the enforcement mechanism of sovereign states.” Without that enforcement power, he argued, crypto cannot fulfill the role that money is supposed to play. From this premise, he concluded that crypto assets “will eventually disappear on their own.”
The phrase “on their own” is significant. Lu did not call for regulators to ban crypto. Instead, he framed the asset class as carrying a built-in flaw that will cause it to fade over time.
Contrast with value investing
Lu also drew a clear distinction between crypto and the investing style he practices. He characterized digital assets as speculative and unsupported by any formal authority. Value investing, by contrast, focuses on businesses with real economic utility and durable competitive advantages.
Who Li Lu is
Lu is a Columbia alumnus holding a BA, an MBA, and a JD from the university. He founded Himalaya Capital in 1997, a firm closely associated with the disciplined, long-horizon investing style central to Columbia’s Graham & Dodd tradition. His comments were consistent with his long-established philosophy of favoring real businesses over speculative bets, making his crypto skepticism a natural extension of that worldview rather than a sudden change of heart.
Market and regulatory context
His statements did not line up with any market-moving event, and no notable market reaction has been tied to them. The remarks come during a period of ongoing regulatory scrutiny of crypto markets worldwide. For institutions that already weigh long-term stability and government backing heavily, the lack of clear regulatory frameworks remains a sticking point. Lu’s critique gives those cautious investors an articulate rationale for staying on the sidelines.
