The event, described by Boston University economist Laurence (Larry) Kotlikoff on his Substack newsletter, featured Professors Tarek Hassan and David Lagakos in a moderated conversation about the macroeconomic and developmental implications of cryptocurrency, with Martin Fiszbein serving as moderator, according to Kotlikoff’s account of the session[1].

Kotlikoff framed the discussion as a clash between two coherent but opposing views: one that views cryptocurrencies as largely speculative, “dominated assets” offering little reliable value to investors; and another that sees crypto as a potentially transformative force that could broaden financial access, especially in developing countries[1].

Positions and key arguments

Professor Tarek Hassan, an expert in international finance and macro‑finance, emphasized risks associated with crypto as an asset class—pointing to volatility, speculative trading, and the difficulty of treating many tokens as reliable stores of value or media of exchange[1].

By contrast, Professor David Lagakos, who focuses on macroeconomics and development economics, argued that aspects of cryptocurrency and related financial innovations could deliver meaningful benefits for people in low‑income countries—improving cross‑border payments, expanding access to financial services, and enabling new business models where traditional banking infrastructure is weak[1].

The debate touched on core questions about what money is and how societies decide which instruments serve as money. Kotlikoff’s summary highlighted that one side treats many cryptocurrencies as speculative assets rather than functional currencies, while the other side stresses potential utility in payments and financial inclusion[1].

Context within broader academic and policy conversations

Kotlikoff noted the debate took place within a department he described as highly accomplished and public‑facing, where faculty regularly engage with policy issues, podcasts and public commentary—illustrating how currency debates now cross academic, public, and policy spheres[1][4].

His Substack post situates the conversation among other recent commentary on cryptocurrencies from scholars and commentators who vary widely in their assessments—some viewing Bitcoin as a potential hedge against catastrophic systemic collapse, while others emphasize its speculative and risky nature in ordinary economic circumstances[2].

Implications and unanswered questions

The BU debate underscored several unresolved issues that continue to animate academic and policy debate: whether particular cryptocurrencies can attain stable monetary characteristics; how regulators and central banks should respond; and whether the social benefits of broader access to financial tools outweigh consumer‑protection and stability concerns[1][2].

Speakers also implicitly raised distributional questions—who gains from crypto adoption, who bears losses in crashes, and how public policy might mitigate harms while preserving innovation—questions that remain central to ongoing work by economists and policymakers[1].

Reactions and next steps

Kotlikoff praised the caliber of the participants and presented the exchange as a model of informed academic debate rather than partisan advocacy, encouraging readers to watch or listen where recordings or summaries are available and to engage with the underlying research and opinions of each scholar[1].

Boston University’s economics faculty frequently publish, podcast, and appear in public forums on pressing economic questions; this debate is likely to spur follow‑up events, papers, and public commentary as the technology and regulatory environment evolve[4][5].