A Friend Bought Crypto for My Newborn Baby. Do I Have to Hold on to It?

New York Times

28-05-2025

My wife and I just had a baby girl. A college friend of ours sent us $175 in Bitcoin as a baby gift. He's a crypto bro and is super-into it, while I, on the other hand, am extremely skeptical. My friend said that I can't sell it until her bat mitzvah (when 'it will be at least $1,000,' in his words). I believe that there is a decent likelihood that it is worth $0 in 12 years. Since I am the steward of my baby's money (until she turns 18), do I have a fiduciary responsibility to sell the Bitcoin now since I think it will be worth nothing, or do I have a responsibility to honor my friend's wishes and keep the money in Bitcoin until she turns 12? — Michael, New York
From the Ethicist:
Your friend didn't leave you a nest egg you're honorbound to protect. He left you a souvenir, a digital gewgaw. You could cash it out right now and buy, say, two sheet ice-cream cakes from Carvel. But his wishes were clear. He asked you to wait until her bat mitzvah. That's the whole gift: a speculative dare wrapped in friendship. Ignoring his wishes could sour that friendship: Price this in. Lying about it to prevent him from finding out could cost you some self-respect: Price that in too. The math seems straightforward. Honor his wishes, keep the peace and let it ride. If it sinks, you can gloat about how right you were all along. That's got to be worth something.
Readers Respond
The previous question was about how much of a say a husband has in whether or not to keep an unplanned pregnancy. She wrote: 'I'm 46, unexpectedly pregnant despite having entered perimenopause, with three children already (the youngest is 4). My husband calls this a 'disaster,' and believes abortion is the clear choice because we didn't want another child or plan on this pregnancy. I feel differently. Though I am pro-choice, the idea of terminating a pregnancy makes me deeply uncomfortable, and I'm afraid I would regret it.
'My husband's arguments are that a baby will upend our professional lives, that he doesn't want to return to the exhaustion and social isolation of early parenthood and that he's unwilling to take on a full-time caregiver role again. … We have a stable family, as well as access to the financial benefits afforded to families living in a social-welfare state. Choosing to end this pregnancy feels like a decision based on short-term disruption, and that seems too small a reason.
'My husband's most powerful argument (though it's more a feeling than a rationale) is that he feels angry and powerless. As someone who writes about agency and its absence in historical lives, I genuinely empathize with him. Any thoughts to help guide us?' — Name Withheld
In his response, the Ethicist noted: 'Having a child — even when you've already had children — is what the philosopher Edna Ullmann-Margalit called a 'big decision': one that transforms you, one you can't take back and one in which, as she put it, 'the choice not made casts a lingering shadow.' What's transformed is not just your life but also a landscape of values: You come to care about someone whose existence previously wasn't part of your world. And that care can be deep, irreversible and defining.
'Two realities, then, are pressing in at once. First, the decision is ultimately yours; it's your body and you alone can decide whether you're comfortable having an abortion. Second, it's a decision that will reshape a shared life, and your husband has a stake in that reshaping. He's not wrong to feel conscripted into something momentous without his consent.
'But in a shared life, it's also true that sometimes one person feels something the other doesn't — at least not yet. And still, you go forward together. That process may take time. It may involve grief, friction, adaptation. The hope isn't perfect agreement. It's that mutual care persists, even when agreement falters.
'You are choosing between two possible lives — each with its own appeal, its own costs. You find yourself at a threshold. And whatever lies on the other side, you'll meet it as the person this decision is already helping you become.' (Reread the full question and answer here.)
⬥
Vasectomies are effective (and reversible) methods for men to prevent unplanned pregnancy. Men cannot just wait until their partners get pregnant to exercise their autonomy and right to choose. If he was seriously worried about an unplanned pregnancy, he should've been proactive instead of reactive. Of course, the woman should consider her spouse's opinions, but when it comes down to it, it is her body and her choice. — Freya
⬥
It jumped out to me that the letter writer's arguments to keep the baby are mostly philosophical, while their husband's are grounded in their shared everyday life. I believe this person owes their husband a thorough discussion around the literal everyday logistics of caring for an infant, including what those logistics would look like if the baby is born in distress or with disabilities, and how they would respond as a family if developmental disabilities are diagnosed later in the child's life. — Liz
⬥
The husband is applying a cruel amount of pressure on his wife to get an abortion. He has the right to share his opinion and reasons, but if his wife does not feel comfortable getting an abortion, he shouldn't be calling the situation 'a disaster' or being dismissive of the morals that may be influencing her choice. — Sara
⬥
When my wife fell pregnant in later years, I was in a panic, much as this lady's husband is. But I knew, with cast-iron certainty, that once the child was born, I would not be able to imagine life without them. And so it has been, from the first day of her life onward. We are not wealthy. We suffered the opprobrium of family for having a child late. We have spent most of our savings. But we have a rented roof over our heads, clothes on our backs, food in our mouths and faith in our ability to face anything. — Anthony
⬥
Is it fair to bring a child into the world on moral principle when, on a practical level, one parent views the situation as 'a disaster?' Can this adequately serve the child? The cautionary truth is this: Children are people, not possessions. When we treat them as solutions to our moral dilemmas or fulfillments of our personal narratives, we risk doing them harm — by failing to meet their unique, tender and evolving needs as individuals. That, too, carries profound moral weight. — Shawnna
⬥
I am sure the questioner would have wanted a 'right' answer. And you have told her, in a most empathic and caring way, that there is no right or wrong answer: only a decision, with all the implications that come with it. — Bernard