July 22, 2026
Crypto crash-out hits Codeberg
Codeberg Bans Cryptocurrency Projects
Codeberg kicks out crypto and the comments instantly go full meltdown mode
TLDR: Codeberg approved a ban on cryptocurrency-related projects, saying the category hurts the site’s reputation. The comment section exploded into panic, mockery, and trust issues, with users arguing over censorship, slippery slopes, and whether any hosting platform can really stay neutral.
A volunteer-run code hosting site just voted to ban cryptocurrency projects, and the internet response was basically: pass the popcorn. The proposal passed on Codeberg after users argued that crypto is too closely tied to scams, risky money schemes, and reputational damage. But the real fireworks came after the vote, when confused and furious users piled into the discussion asking the obvious question: what even counts as “cryptocurrency-related”? One commenter flat-out demanded an explanation for how all crypto projects somehow “harm Codeberg’s reputation,” while another sounded blindsided: “Fk hell I just moved to a forge that banned bitcoin!” Not exactly a calm rollout.
Outside observers were just as dramatic. Some couldn’t even read the page and had to dig up an archived copy, which only added to the chaos. The loudest vibe in the comments was less “defend crypto” and more “never trust any platform with your stuff”. People started giving survival advice, telling developers to keep backups, self-host if possible, and move to alternatives like Gitea, Forgejo, or Radicle. Others called the ban childish, unserious, and a dangerous precedent: if a hosting service can ban one unpopular category today, what gets moralized out tomorrow? There were even slippery-slope jokes about banning Ruby on Rails over a founder’s politics. In other words, Codeberg tried to draw a line in the sand, and the community immediately turned it into a bonfire.
Key Points
- •The article shows a Codeberg proposal titled "Proposal for Assembly 2026: Disallow cryptocurrency projects #1254."
- •A participant raised concerns about wording that referenced content harming Codeberg's reputation, saying examples should clearly be non-exhaustive.
- •Gusted replied that the proposal text had already been sent for voting and that clarifications could be made later by the Presidium or Board.
- •A participant asked whether Codeberg had a definition for "cryptocurrency-related."
- •Gusted later announced that the proposal had passed, after which users posted objections and requests for justification.