Gary Stevenson’s Views About Bitcoin
Gary Stevenson, a former financial trader and self-proclaimed economist, has expressed highly skeptical and negative views on Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general. Based on various public statements and media appearances, he considers Bitcoin to be a speculative asset with no intrinsic value, often likening it to a pyramid scheme or a bubble driven by hype rather than substance.
Stevenson argues that Bitcoin “costs nothing to produce” in a fundamental sense, dismissing the energy-intensive mining process as not contributing to its real value. He believes its price is propped up by marketing, social media buzz, and speculative trading rather than any tangible economic utility. For instance, he has pointed out that while successful crypto investors flaunt their gains (e.g., buying Lamborghinis and posting on Instagram), those who lose money remain silent, reinforcing his view of it as a risky, overhyped phenomenon. He has predicted that Bitcoin’s value could eventually plummet to zero, describing it as “points on the internet” or a game of “musical chairs” where late investors are left with worthless assets.
Additionally, Stevenson has speculated—without evidence—that Bitcoin’s creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, might be secretly selling coins to fund advertising and PR campaigns to artificially inflate its price, a claim that reflects his broader distrust of the cryptocurrency ecosystem. He contrasts Bitcoin with traditional assets like gold, houses, or stocks, which he sees as having more enduring value, even though he critiques the inequality tied to those assets as well.
His perspective stems from his background as a trader who made millions betting against economic recovery and his focus on wealth inequality. He views Bitcoin not as a solution to financial system flaws (as some proponents argue) but as a symptom of speculative excess that distracts from addressing structural economic issues. However, his critics, particularly in the crypto community, argue that he overlooks Bitcoin’s role as a decentralized store of value, its adoption trends, and its resilience against inflation—factors that have sustained its growth despite volatility.
In summary, Gary Stevenson sees Bitcoin as a worthless scam destined to collapse, driven by hype and speculation rather than real economic merit, a stance that puts him at odds with its supporters who highlight its technological and financial potential.
Was Gary Stevenson A Good Trader?
Gary Stevenson’s reputation as a trader is a mixed bag, depending on who you ask. He was a short-term interest rate (STIRT) trader at Citibank starting in 2008, joining at age 21 after winning a trading competition called “The Trading Game.” Stevenson claims he became Citibank’s most profitable trader globally in 2011, raking in a peak profit of $35 million for the bank that year by betting on low interest rates driven by growing economic inequality. He says this success made him a millionaire by his mid-20s before he retired from trading in 2014 at age 27. His memoir, The Trading Game (published 2024), paints a picture of a sharp, self-taught talent who outsmarted the system, leveraging his working-class roots and real-world instincts to excel in a cutthroat industry.
However, his former colleagues push back hard. In a 2024 Financial Times article, eight ex-Citibank peers disputed his “best trader in the world” claim, arguing there was no official global ranking to back it up. They suggest he was good—maybe even great for a time—but not the top dog. Some point to Rob Lloyd, another London STIRT trader, as the real standout, allegedly pulling in nine-figure profits year after year. Critics say Stevenson’s $35 million profit, while impressive (especially for someone in their mid-20s), doesn’t match the scale of the bank’s biggest hitters, who’d need consistent high-nine-figure or low-ten-figure gains across multiple asset classes to claim that title. Others, like a colleague quoted in eFinancialCareers, call him a solid trader who made money when conditions were ripe—like during the post-2008 crash—but lacked the longevity or breadth to be the best.
On the flip side, Stevenson’s results speak for themselves to some extent. He turned a rough upbringing in East London and a knack for math into millions, navigating the 2007-2008 financial crisis and the Greek debt crisis with bets that paid off big. His first bonus in 2009 was £13,000, and by 2010, he’d cleared nearly £400,000—numbers that suggest serious skill, luck, or both. Even after leaving Citi, he told The Guardian in 2025 he still makes “hundreds of thousands of pounds every year” trading his own account, hinting at sustained market savvy.
An Evaluation Of Stevenson’s Trading Strategies
Evaluating Gary Stevenson’s trading strategies is tricky because he hasn’t publicly laid out a detailed playbook—his book The Trading Game (2024) and interviews offer glimpses, not a full blueprint. Still, piecing together what’s available from his memoir, media appearances, and economic commentary, we can infer the core of his approach as a short-term interest rate (STIRT) trader at Citibank from 2008 to 2014. Here’s a breakdown based on what’s known:
Core Strategy: Betting on Economic Stagnation
Stevenson’s big play was rooted in a macro view: post-2008 financial crisis, he saw growing wealth inequality as a drag on economic recovery. He argued that the rich hoard money rather than spend it, tanking demand and keeping interest rates low for longer than markets expected. At Citi, he traded interest rate derivatives—think futures, swaps, and options tied to benchmarks like LIBOR. His edge came from shorting rate expectations, betting central banks (especially the Bank of England) would hold rates near zero far into the future. This paid off handsomely during the sluggish recovery and the 2010-2012 Greek debt crisis, when markets overestimated rate hikes that never came. In 2011, he claims this netted Citi $35 million, suggesting he sized his positions aggressively when conviction was high.
- Strength: His contrarian macro insight was spot-on for the era. Most traders underestimated how long quantitative easing and low-rate policies would persist. Stevenson’s focus on real-world inequality as a signal gave him a non-technical edge over peers glued to charts.
- Weakness: It’s a one-trick pony heavily reliant on a specific economic backdrop. When rates eventually normalize (like post-2015 in some markets), this strategy loses steam unless adapted.
Execution: High Risk, High Reward
Stevenson worked in STIRT, a fast-paced desk where positions turn over daily or weekly. He’s described taking bold, leveraged bets—think 10-to-1 or higher—on rate movements, exploiting mispricings in the yield curve. For example, if short-term rates were priced to rise but he saw no catalyst, he’d load up on swaps or futures to profit as the market corrected. His memoir hints at a knack for reading flow—watching where big players (hedge funds, pension funds) were positioned and fading their herd mentality. This suggests a mix of fundamental analysis (inequality thesis) and market psychology.
- Strength: Quick, decisive moves in a liquid market like STIRT let him capitalize on fleeting opportunities. His $35 million year shows he could scale bets without blowing up.
- Weakness: Leverage cuts both ways. A misstep—like an unexpected rate spike—could wipe out gains fast. His short career might imply he leaned on luck or didn’t face a brutal stress test.
Personality-Driven Edge
Stevenson frames his success as an outsider’s hustle—self-taught, no fancy degree (he studied math and economics at LSE but dropped out of a PhD). He claims this let him see what posh traders missed: the real economy’s grind. He’d grind out trades others ignored, maybe arbing small rate discrepancies or piling into unloved positions. Posts on X from fans suggest he had a “street smart” vibe, but there’s no hard evidence of unique tactics beyond his macro bet.
- Strength: Gut-driven trading can break groupthink, especially in a crisis when conventional wisdom fails.
- Weakness: Over-reliance on intuition without rigorous risk management smells like a recipe for eventual disaster. His early exit at 27 might dodge that bullet.
Post-Citi Trading
Since leaving Citi in 2014, Stevenson says he trades his own account, making “hundreds of thousands” yearly (per The Guardian, 2025). He’s vague on specifics but pushes a “wealth tax” narrative, implying he’s still bearish on growth and long on stagnation plays—maybe bonds or rate hedges. Without data, it’s hard to judge, but consistency over a decade suggests he’s adapted beyond the 2008-2014 window.
Critique
- Scalability: His $35 million peak is solid but not elite for a global bank—top dogs in rates or FX often hit nine figures. His strategy thrived in a post-crash anomaly; it’s unclear how it holds in volatile or rising-rate environments (e.g., 2022-2023).
- Verification: No public P&L or trade logs back his claims. Ex-colleagues in the Financial Times (2024) say he overstated his dominance, hinting his edge was narrower than advertised.
- Sustainability: Quitting at 27 raises questions. Did he burn out, cash out, or see the limits of his playbook? Longevity matters in trading, and he lacks it.
Stevenson’s strategy—big macro bets on low rates fueled by inequality, executed with leveraged STIRT trades—was brilliant for its moment. It exploited a structural shift others missed, blending fundamentals with market timing. But it’s a niche, era-specific approach, not a timeless system. He was good, maybe great, in 2008-2014’s chaos—less evidence he’d dominate in, say, a 2020s inflationary spike. Think of him as a sniper, not a general: lethal in the right conditions, unproven outside them. Without raw trade data, it’s educated guesswork, but his results suggest more skill than luck—though luck didn’t hurt.
Comparison Of Gary Stevenson To Other Traders
Comparing Gary Stevenson to other traders requires focusing on his known profile—his time as a STIRT (short-term interest rate) trader at Citibank from 2008 to 2014, his claimed peak profit of $35 million in 2011, and his self-described edge rooted in betting on prolonged low rates due to economic inequality. Since his career is short and specifics are sparse (mostly from The Trading Game and interviews), I’ll stack him against a mix of notable traders with overlapping styles or eras, using available data and industry context. Here’s how he measures up:
- John Paulson (Hedge Fund Legend)
- Profile: Made billions betting against the U.S. housing market pre-2008 crash via credit default swaps (CDS). His fund, Paulson & Co., netted ~$15 billion in 2007 alone.
- Strategy: Macro-driven, contrarian—saw subprime collapse when others didn’t. Heavy use of derivatives, massive leverage, and patience for the thesis to play out.
- Comparison: Like Stevenson, Paulson thrived in crisis, turning a big-picture insight (housing bubble vs. inequality-stagnation) into outsized profits. Stevenson’s $35 million pales next to Paulson’s haul, but both punched above their weight early—Paulson was mid-career, Stevenson a newbie. Paulson’s bet was riskier (CDS could’ve expired worthless), while Stevenson’s STIRT trades were shorter-term and more liquid. Paulson’s longevity (decades) and scale dwarf Stevenson’s brief run.
- Edge: Paulson wins on magnitude and staying power; Stevenson’s claim is narrower but impressive for his age (mid-20s).
- Stanley Druckenmiller (Macro Titan)
- Profile: Ran Soros’ Quantum Fund and later Duquesne Capital. Famous for “breaking the Bank of England” in 1992 (shorting the pound, $1 billion profit) and consistent 30%+ annual returns over decades.
- Strategy: Top-down macro, blending fundamentals (e.g., currency pegs) with market timing. Flexible—shifts asset classes (FX, bonds, equities) as conditions change.
- Comparison: Druckenmiller’s macro lens aligns with Stevenson’s inequality-rate thesis, but Druck’s scope was broader and more dynamic. Stevenson’s $35 million year is a blip next to Druckenmiller’s billion-dollar scores. Both bet big when convicted, but Druckenmiller’s risk management and adaptability (e.g., pivoting from losses) outclass Stevenson’s untested resilience. Stevenson retired at 27; Druckenmiller thrived into his 60s.
- Edge: Druckenmiller’s versatility and track record lap Stevenson’s single-note success.
- Greg Lippmann (The Big Short Star)
- Profile: Deutsche Bank trader who foresaw the 2008 housing crash, shorting subprime CDOs. Made ~$1 billion for the bank, pocketed $50 million personally.
- Strategy: Deep dive into fundamentals (mortgage data), contrarian stance against market euphoria, executed via CDS like Paulson.
- Comparison: Lippmann and Stevenson both shone in post-2008 chaos, betting against consensus—Lippmann on housing, Stevenson on rate hikes. Lippmann’s profit dwarfed Stevenson’s ($1 billion vs. $35 million), but Stevenson’s STIRT desk had tighter constraints than Lippmann’s prop trading freedom. Both leveraged a crisis, but Lippmann’s bet was more complex and higher-stakes. Stevenson’s briefer career lacks Lippmann’s follow-through.
- Edge: Lippmann’s bigger win and detailed legacy (immortalized in The Big Short) overshadow Stevenson’s flash-in-the-pan claim.
- Rob Lloyd (Stevenson’s Citi Peer)
- Profile: London STIRT trader at Citibank during Stevenson’s era. Ex-colleagues (per Financial Times, 2024) say he made nine-figure profits annually, outpacing Stevenson.
- Strategy: Unknown specifics, but likely similar STIRT playbook—rate swaps, futures, exploiting yield curve mispricings. Consistent high performer.
- Comparison: Direct rival in Stevenson’s sandbox. If Lloyd hit $100 million+ yearly, he triples Stevenson’s $35 million peak. Both thrived post-2008, but Lloyd’s longevity and scale suggest broader mastery. Stevenson claims global top-trader status; colleagues crown Lloyd instead. No public data verifies either, but Lloyd’s quieter rep hints at less hype, more grind.
- Edge: Lloyd likely beats Stevenson on raw numbers and staying power, though Stevenson’s narrative grabs more spotlight.
- Linda Raschke (Independent Pro)
- Profile: Floor trader turned independent, known for short-term technical trading (stocks, futures). Built a steady career since the 1980s, no single “big score” but reliable profits.
- Strategy: Tactical, pattern-based, high-frequency trades with strict risk controls. Less macro, more market-driven.
- Comparison: Raschke’s style contrasts Stevenson’s macro-heavy STIRT bets. Her smaller, consistent wins lack Stevenson’s $35 million flash, but her decades-long career shows durability he never tested. Stevenson’s leverage and bold calls outshine Raschke’s conservative grind, but she’d never burn out at 27.
- Edge: Raschke wins on endurance; Stevenson on peak intensity.
Key Metrics Breakdown
- Profit Scale: Stevenson’s $35 million is strong for a young STIRT trader but lags Paulson ($15 billion), Druckenmiller ($1 billion+), Lippmann ($1 billion), and possibly Lloyd ($100 million+). Raschke’s totals are lower but spread over time.
- Career Length: Stevenson’s 6 years (2008-2014) is short next to Paulson (30+ years), Druckenmiller (40+), Lippmann (15+), and Raschke (40+). Lloyd’s tenure is unclear but likely longer.
- Risk Appetite: All took big swings—Stevenson’s leveraged STIRT bets mirror Paulson and Lippmann’s CDS gambles, Druckenmiller’s currency plays. Raschke’s tighter stops set her apart.
- Adaptability: Stevenson’s inequality thesis worked in one era; others (especially Druckenmiller) flexed across markets and decades.
The Verdict
So, was he good? Yes, by most accounts, he was damn good—especially for his age and short stint. Was he the best? That’s shakier. His self-promotion rubs some as exaggerated, and without hard, bank-verified data (which Citi doesn’t release), it’s his word against his doubters. Posts on X reflect this divide: some hail him as a legend who saw the game for what it was, while others scoff at his bravado. The truth likely lies in between—a talented trader who punched above his weight, but whose legend might outstrip the ledger.
Stevenson holds his own as a young gun with a killer 2011, punching up in a crisis like Paulson and Lippmann. His $35 million profit and inequality-driven STIRT bets show real skill—better than most peers his age. But against giants like Druckenmiller or even Citi’s Lloyd, he’s a lightweight—less scale, unproven longevity, and a narrower playbook. He’s a one-hit wonder with a loud mic; they’re hall-of-famers with deeper stats. If he’d stayed in the game, maybe he’d rank higher—retiring at 27 leaves him a wildcard, not a legend.
The image of Gary Stevenson is from Wikipedia https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gary_stevenson_2024_1.jpg This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license.
