Vanity Fair dresses down crypto’s elites — and exposes a deeper identity crisis

Vanity Fair’s “crypto true believers” cover sparks backlash on X, reviving an old question: can an anti‑establishment movement win mainstream respect without losing its soul?

A glossy magazine profile of crypto’s power class has set the industry’s social media circles ablaze, with reactions ranging from embarrassed laughter to outright fury.

Vanity Fair’s latest cover story, titled “Crypto True Believers Demand to Be Taken Seriously,” landed this week like a grenade in crypto Twitter — or rather, crypto X. The piece profiles a who’s-who of digital asset royalty, including ARK Invest CEO Cathie Wood, Polychain Capital founder Olaf Carlson-Wee, and Galaxy Digital’s Michael Novogratz, all photographed in what many in the industry immediately described as deliberately unflattering, sarcastic imagery.​

The article’s premise is sweeping: it chronicles how the cryptocurrency sector, after surviving multiple rounds of regulatory crackdowns and brutal market cycles, has attempted to reshape global power dynamics ahead of 2026 through massive political donations — the industry collectively poured $135 million into the 2024 elections, winning more than 90% of the races it funded — and a near-messianic sense of purpose. The piece also contextualizes crypto’s current malaise: the total market cap has shed roughly $1.4 trillion since its December 2024 peak, with Bitcoin trading around $73,700 — approximately half its all-time high.​

But it was the visuals and editorial framing that lit the fuse. A group photograph of the featured figures went viral almost immediately, spreading across X timelines with a wave of mockery and criticism. Vanity Fair, a publication intimately attuned to celebrity culture and cultural gatekeeping, appeared to many observers to be treating crypto’s self-styled financial revolutionaries as a spectacle rather than a serious force — a distinction the community found painful, especially given how hard it has lobbied for mainstream legitimacy.

Dennison Bertram, co-founder of Tally and a former fashion photographer with over a decade of experience in the industry, was among the most vocal critics. He argued that the article was not merely skeptical but openly contemptuous, with both the writing and the photography engineered to diminish its subjects. Dissecting one image of Novogratz, Bertram noted that “his eyes are squinting… his face is deliberately cast in shadow, appearing menacing… Is this a positive image? I don’t think so at all.”

Noelle Acheson of Triple Crown Digital offered a more reflective take: “We can laugh all we want — and we definitely want to — at Vanity Fair’s photoset… but the deeper issue is: Is this how mainstream media sees the cryptocurrency industry? If so, we still have a lot of work to do.”

The backlash quickly bled into broader, more philosophical territory. Dean Eigenmann, the Swiss-born MEV veteran and sharp-tongued commentator at @DeanEigenmann, had already laid the intellectual groundwork for exactly this kind of reckoning in his February essay “A Return To Fundamentals” — a widely-read X Article that accumulated over 121,000 views.

In it, Eigenmann argued that crypto’s desperate scramble for institutional validation and mainstream legitimacy had effectively gutted the industry of its original purpose. “The institutions did not come to crypto,” he wrote. “Crypto went to them and was reshaped in their image.” The Vanity Fair episode, to many, felt like living proof of his thesis: an industry that spent years softening its edges to court Wall Street and Washington had finally landed on the cover of a celebrity magazine — and been laughed at anyway.​

One X user, @jinelled’Lima, captured the bitter irony succinctly: “We’re on the cover now. Can it get any more ironic? This isn’t us. We were never supposed to be like this.”​

The controversy cuts to a question the industry has never fully resolved: can a movement that began as a direct challenge to entrenched financial power ever truly be “taken seriously” by the very culture it sought to disrupt — without losing itself in the process? For now, the X discourse suggests the answer remains as volatile as the market itself.