The murder of Charlie Kirk and the cost of Bitcoin mainstreaming

On September 10, 2024, a news story that shook both American politics and the cryptocurrency community broke: conservative advocate Charlie Kirk was shot and killed during a speech. Ironically, he was discussing America’s violence problem at the time. The suddenness of this event prompted many to reconsider: what exactly was lost? The answer may be far more complex than it appears on the surface.

What was lost was not just a life, but a voice with a unique position in Bitcoin promotion. Charlie Kirk’s particularity lies in—he is neither a cryptographer nor a tech entrepreneur, nor a traditional financial professional, but a political activist who controls one of the largest organizational networks among America’s young generation.

How to Turn a Technology into an Ideology

In 2012, at just 18 years old, Charlie Kirk co-founded Turning Point USA (TPUSA) with Bill Montgomery. This conservative student organization has expanded rapidly over the past decade, now establishing chapters in over 3,000 high schools and colleges, with more than 650,000 active student members. Such a base is enough to turn any idea into a “movement.”

Kirk’s promotion of Bitcoin did not start from the technical side but from political needs. In the 2024 campus debate series “Prove Me Wrong,” he integrated Bitcoin into a broader conservative political narrative—positioning it as a symbol of individual freedom against government control. This was a brilliant transformation: turning a complex technical issue into an ethical one.

“If you don’t understand Bitcoin, then wait to be ruled by those who do.” This phrase recurs frequently in his speeches. It’s not about discussing blockchain technology but about a generational transfer of power. For young people feeling betrayed by the economic system due to student loans and high housing prices, such statements are highly attractive.

Kirk cleverly linked Bitcoin to economic dilemmas directly felt by young people—inflation, government debt, Federal Reserve policies. “Your generation is facing the most severe devaluation in history. The fixed cap of 21 million bitcoins means no one can just print money to dilute your wealth.” Such arguments are more rooted in young minds than any technical white paper.

From Campus to the White House Power Corridor

But Kirk’s influence did not stop at campus speeches. According to Forbes, he has close ties with the Trump family, especially his friendship with Donald Trump Jr., which opened doors for policy influence.

On July 27, 2024, Trump delivered a historic speech at a Bitcoin conference in Nashville, promising to make the U.S. the global capital of cryptocurrency. Kirk then reposted this tweet on X, viewing it as a victory. When Trump announced the implementation of a “National Strategic Bitcoin Reserve” during his second term, Kirk’s Turning Point Action had already made digital asset policy one of its core issues to mobilize young voters.

This was not just media exposure—it involved policy influence. Reports indicate Kirk even participated in the personnel selection process for the new Trump administration. As cryptocurrency shifted from a fringe topic to a mainstream political narrative in the U.S., Charlie Kirk’s campus lecture had long evolved from academic discussion into a movement reshaping America’s political and economic agenda.

During the 2024 election, Kirk’s “You’re Being Brainwashed” tour visited about 25 universities, garnering approximately 2 billion views on social media. Forbes even pointed out that this tour played a “key role” in Trump’s ultimate victory.

An Irreplaceable Void

Charlie Kirk’s greatest value lies in one point: he proved that what is most needed to mainstream Bitcoin is not more technical literature or economic papers, but better storytellers.

He is not selling a technology but a narrative: freedom, justice, intergenerational wealth protection, and resistance to power. Using language young people can understand, he transformed cryptographic principles into political beliefs. This ability is extremely rare in the entire American political ecosystem.

But it is precisely this concentration of power—one person wielding ideological weapons, political networks, and policy influence—that exposes a risk in contemporary America: when technical issues are deeply embedded in ideological conflicts, advocates themselves may become targets.

Kirk was shot and killed while discussing gun violence. This seemingly ironic detail actually reflects a deeper issue: when Bitcoin is no longer just a technical issue but a tool in fierce political struggles, its advocates are no longer scholars or engineers but frontline participants in political battles.

Today, no one can match Charlie Kirk in simultaneously holding mainstream political influence, genuine belief in cryptocurrency, and organizational impact on the younger generation. The void he leaves is gradually becoming apparent. Will Bitcoin continue to achieve mainstream acceptance? It depends on whether the next Charlie Kirk can be found. But a deeper question remains—given today’s polarized American political environment, will such figures still dare to appear?