From thrill to trust: How Gen-Z is redefining crypto investing in India
Live Events
(You can now subscribe to our
(You can now subscribe to our ETMarkets WhatsApp channel
A few years ago, crypto investing in India was often seen as a high-stakes game—fuelled by the thrill of quick profits and meme-coin mania. But that's changing fast. Gen-Z and millennials, once drawn by the excitement, are now taking a more strategic approach—treating Bitcoin and other digital assets as long-term wealth builders.According to Edul Patel, CEO and Co-founder of Mudrex , today's young investors are no longer chasing overnight gains. 'The one common theme we hear from our users is that they just want to buy and hold. It's almost like no one sells Bitcoin anymore,' he told ET Now.Patel says the mindset shift has been especially noticeable over the past couple of years. 'Till a couple of years ago, people would start off with Rs 500 just to try and double their money in a few days. That's no longer the approach,' he said. 'Now, it's about parking funds regularly, doing SIPs, and making crypto a part of long-term asset holdings.'Mudrex data shows that this change is being driven primarily by Gen-Z and millennial investors. These younger cohorts are gradually allocating 3–5% of their portfolios to crypto, treating it more like digital gold than a lottery ticket.One reason for this evolution is better access to information. Patel believes education is playing a key role in tempering unrealistic expectations. 'Early on, there was a lot of thrill-seeking behaviour. But now, that's not the case for the vast majority. People understand that past returns won't repeat, and they're incorporating that into their worldview.'Regulatory uncertainty hasn't deterred this new wave either. 'It is completely legal to buy, sell, and trade crypto in India,' Patel said, clarifying a common misconception. 'While there's no designated regulator yet, the government is actively working on it.'Despite the optimism, Patel advises caution. 'We typically recommend not investing more than 10% of your wealth in crypto. In fact, 3–5% is the sweet spot,' he said. He also encourages new investors to start small—Rs 2,000 to Rs 5,000 initially—before scaling up with consistent investments.His own investment style reflects this philosophy. 'I don't own stocks directly. I invest via mutual funds. Similarly, in crypto, I do SIPs in Bitcoin and Ethereum,' he revealed. 'It's not about timing the market—it's about time in the market.'The broader trend suggests that Indian crypto investors are maturing. From late-night trading frenzies to systematic investment plans, the landscape is changing—one Bitcoin at a time.As regulatory clarity improves and financial literacy grows, crypto is steadily cementing its place in India's investment ecosystem—especially among the country's youngest and most tech-savvy investors.: Recommendations, suggestions, views and opinions given by the experts are their own. These do not represent the views of the Economic Times)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
31 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Expansion positives factored into the valuations of Hindustan Zinc
The company expects revenues to rise from Rs 34,100 crore in FY25 to Rs 40,000-42,000 crore with phase-I expansion, and further rise to Rs 62,000 to Rs 65,000 crore upon completion of plan Devangshu Datta Listen to This Article The board of Hindustan Zinc Ltd (HZL) has approved a capital expenditure (capex) plan of ₹12,000 crore to be funded through internal accruals and debt to expand zinc smelting capacity by 250 kilo tonnes per annum (KTPA) at Debari in Rajasthan along with a mine capacity expansion of 330 KTPA. At an investor meet held by the company, the management announced that the expansion is expected to be completed in the next 36 months, with capex across FY26-FY28. The guidance is ₹3,500 crore capex in FY26, ₹5,000 crore in FY27, and the remaining in FY28. Of the capex,
Hans India
33 minutes ago
- Hans India
NCP Leader Slams Singapore Airlines For Delayed Condolences On Air India Crash
Former Civil Aviation Minister and NCP leader Praful Patel has strongly criticized Singapore Airlines for what he described as a belated and insincere response to the Air India flight AI171 tragedy in Ahmedabad, which resulted in the deaths of more than 270 people, including 241 passengers and crew members. Singapore Airlines, which holds a 25.1% stake in Air India, waited almost six days after the June 12 crash before releasing a public statement expressing condolences to the victims' families. The airline stated, "The Singapore Airlines (SIA) Group extends its deepest condolences to the families and loved ones of everyone affected by the devastating Air India flight AI171 accident," and assured ongoing support to Tata Sons and Air India during this difficult period. Patel, however, was not satisfied with the timing or tone of the statement. He took to social media to question why Singapore Airlines, as a significant shareholder with board representation and a CEO nominee in Air India, delayed its public response. He accused the airline of "paying lip service" and highlighted its "deafening silence" in the immediate aftermath of the disaster. The crash, involving a Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner en route from Ahmedabad to London Gatwick, also resulted in 29 fatalities on the ground, making it one of the deadliest incidents involving an Indian airline and the first fatal crash of the Boeing 787 model since its introduction. Patel further pointed out that Singapore Airlines is responsible for maintaining a large portion of Air India's wide-body fleet and questioned the lack of visible engagement from the airline following the tragedy. He also noted that Air India's CEO, Campbell Wilson, is a nominee of Singapore Airlines, intensifying expectations for a prompt and empathetic response. Meanwhile, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and Air India's internal safety board have launched investigations into the crash. The DGCA recently reported that no major safety concerns were found in Air India's Boeing 787 fleet, and maintenance systems were compliant with safety standards after a thorough review.
Indian Express
36 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Rs 2,434 crore ‘fraud': CBI opposes Jai Corp, Anand Jain's pleas against FIR
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Wednesday opposed the pleas filed by Jai Corporation Ltd and its promoter Anand Jaikumar Jain before the Bombay High Court challenging the FIR registered by the central agency alleging serious financial irregularities by the company and its promoters. The central agency had alleged defrauding of funds to the tune of Rs 2,434 crore from the public investors in real estate projects among other irregularities. A division bench of Justices Ajey S Gadkari and Rajesh S Patil was hearing pleas by Jai Corp and Jain seeking quashing of the FIR. The CBI, through advocate Kuldeep Patil, sought dismissal of the plea stating that the investigation in the matter was still in progress. The central agency justified its FIR stating that it was initiated based on the HC order of January 31. The CBI on February 12 had constituted a five-member SIT led by its DIG Sarah Sharma to probe the allegations. The HC granted two-week time to file reply to the plea to respondent Shoaib Richie Sequeira, the original complainant who had approached the HC through earlier petition seeking preliminary probe in the matter. The court also granted further two-week time to petitioners to file rejoinder to CBI and Sequeira's reply and posted further hearing after four weeks. The central agency had claimed that Jai Corp Ltd with Jain, its sister concerns, their directors and promoters, one Parag Shantilal Parekh and other unknown private persons have 'committed offences of criminal conspiracy, dishonestly inducing delivery of property, making forged documents for the purpose of cheating, using as genuine the forged documents and thereby caused wrongful gain to themselves.' The Jai Corp and Jain in April filed writ pleas in the HC seeking quashing of the CBI FIR and other interim reliefs, claiming that the action against them was arbitrary. On March 17, the Supreme Court had disposed of the appeal by Jai Corp against Bombay High Court order directing CBI Zonal director to form an SIT to conduct thorough probe into the allegation of fraudulent activities to the tune of Rs 3,000 crore by Jain. On January 31, the Bombay HC bench led by Justice Revati Mohite-Dere had passed a judgment on a plea by 61-year-old Sequeira. The HC had noted that there were 'national and international ramifications in the case.' The HC had also expressed disappointment over conduct of EOW and CBI showing inability to conduct a probe and stressed on the need for fair and efficient probe. The SC appreciated 'courage' shown by HC judges to pass the said verdict. The CBI FIR in question has listed allegations including that 'during May 2006 and June 2008, Jain and his group in their individual capacity and as directors/promoters of Jai Corp. Ltd, in conspiracy with sister companies of Jai Corp. Ltd., floated two entities i.e. Urban Infrastructure Venture Capital Ltd. and Urban Infrastructure Trustees Ltd.' As per the FIR, they 'mobilised funds to the tune of Rs 2,434 crore from the public at large, for the scheme of Urban Infrastructure Opportunities Fund for the purpose of real estate business at Mumbai & other places.' The FIR further stated that 'on June 31, 2006, Indenture of Trust (IOT) was registered by the two entities with Registrar of Assurances, Mumbai as settlor and trustee, to establish a venture capital fund and got it registered with the SEBI.' The disclosure of interest in the IoT allegedly stated that 'no transaction arrangement or investment will be made with another person with whom the director, officer, employee, etc. has some relationship and create conflict of interest'. The central agency said that in contravention of the declaration, the accused persons 'cheated the public at large and diverted funds by way of making investments/giving unsecured loans within the sister concerns.' The CBI further alleged that sister concerns of Jai Corp, over the years, showed the unsecured loans as losses on the basis of false and fabricated documents, so as to justify the constructions/real estate projects. Moreover, these corporate entities too 'executed forged agreements against advance paid for the purchase of benami land to justify the losses.' The CBI, in its FIR dated February 18, 2025, alleged that through criminal conspiracy, Jain, one Parag Shantilal Parekh, and their group diverted part or whole of Rs 2, 434 crore collected from investors by the two entities in 2006-07 to Mauritius and/or Jersey Channel Islands for incorporation of corporate entities at these places so as to divert the money collected from investors and banks. The FIR further stated that part or whole of Rs 3,252 crore availed as loan from Banks in 2006-07 by Navi Mumbai SEZ Pvt Ltd or part or whole of Rs 686 crore availed as loan from banks by the said company in 2003-04 too was diverted to the Mauritius and/or Jersey Channel Islands. The central agency further alleged that Jain, Parekh and their group diverted/laundered Rs 98.83 crore of foreign currency loan availed by Navi Mumbai SEZ Pvt Ltd from banks in 2008-09 to Mauritius and thereafter floated corporate entities to facilitate diversion of loan amount availed in India to abroad. In the end, it was alleged that the parent company of Jain, 'during 2010-17 fraudulently exported goods to Sarbags PTY Ltd, New South Wales, Australia and Assurance Products Corporation, California, USA on the basis of fictitious invoices/documents and thereby diverted the funds for their end utilisation.'
