Adam Back Says Justin Bieber’s $1,300,000 Bored Ape NFT Has Negative Value

Blockstream CEO Adam Back has drawn a sharp line between celebrity-owned digital collectibles and Bitcoin, saying Justin Bieber’s $1.3 million Bored Ape NFT is worth zero or even negative, while Bitcoin does not share that fate. The comment came after a crypto influencer estimated the token’s value at about $16,300. Back replied that the ape is worth $0, and later accepted that gas costs could make the practical value negative.

The $1.3 million entry and today’s floor

Bieber bought Bored Ape NFT #3001 for 500 ETH in January 2022, when the transaction equaled roughly $1.3 million. The purchase happened during the height of Bored Ape Yacht Club hype, and the token’s lack of rare traits already drew criticism.

The current floor for the collection sits near 6.25 ETH, or about $16,600, leaving Bieber roughly 99% below his entry. The floor reached 153.7 ETH in May 2022, marking the collection’s peak. The singer was not the only public figure to buy an ape during that cycle; NBA player Stephen Curry also purchased one.

The wider NFT market has faced pressure as well. In June, NFT valuations moved toward record market cap lows as Ethereum fell. Nike closed its NFT studio late last year.

Why Back says “negative” is technically possible

Back’s reply to the $16,300 estimate was brief: the ape is worth $0. Another user then argued that the number should be negative because an owner would have to pay gas, the fee Ethereum charges for transactions, to transfer or discard the token. Back agreed with that framing, posting on September 27, 2026, that it is technically true because a holder would need to pay to get rid of it.

That distinction matters to readers because it reframes the discussion around ownership costs. A collectible can have a market floor, but if selling or moving it costs more than the asset is worth, the practical outcome can be a loss beyond the price decline.

The Bitcoin separation

A separate question asked whether Bitcoin was heading to zero as well. Back said no, limiting his verdict to Bored Ape NFTs and other NFT collectibles. His position rests on a long history in cryptography: his Hashcash system was cited in the Bitcoin white paper, and he has repeatedly defended Bitcoin’s role as a separate monetary asset rather than a speculative novelty.

Back rarely softens his views. In August, he argued that Satoshi’s early forum posts settle nothing on scaling. In September, he put €7.6 million into Capital B, a Paris-listed company that stockpiles Bitcoin, tying his public stance to personal capital.

Still, the Bieber case may not end with a flat zero. Because the token was owned by a famous owner, a buyer could in principle pay a premium for the provenance. Whether anyone would pay that premium is a separate question, and Back’s point was that the collectible’s underlying value does not resemble Bitcoin’s.