From the gold standard perspective, Bitcoin is designed as a perfect digital scarce asset, but its real-world path is far more complex than the ideal. Bitcoin mimics gold's scarcity by algorithmically capping its total supply at 21 million coins, forming the core narrative of its 'digital hardness.' Its decentralized network ensures that no single entity can control its issuance, theoretically making it an ideal fortress against fiat currency devaluation.
However, gold took thousands of years to establish its value consensus, while Bitcoin has only been around for fifteen years. Its first major dilemma lies in the 'store of value' paradox: in order to be widely recognized as a robust store of value, its price needs to be relatively stable; yet, due to its market capitalization being relatively small compared to traditional assets and the market being driven by speculation, its volatility is extremely high. This intense fluctuation, in turn, hinders it from becoming a universally accepted medium of exchange or unit of account, creating a cyclical dilemma.
The deeper risk lies in the competition and uncertainty of the status of 'digital gold'. Other cryptocurrencies like Ethereum are also vying for this narrative and are providing more functionality through technological iterations. At the same time, the central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) being developed by various countries are centralized and controlled 'digital fiat currencies', which completely contradicts the philosophy of Bitcoin, potentially leading to direct regulatory suppression in the future. Moreover, the Bitcoin network's massive energy consumption is facing increasingly severe environmental scrutiny, which may affect large institutions' willingness to adopt it.
⚖️ Please consider: Do you believe in the scarcity set by the code itself, or do you think that society will ultimately give it that consensus under market turmoil and external pressure? When volatility consumes your principal, can you still hold onto your belief in 'digital gold'?
