Bitcoin and gold have similar characteristics. This might lead one to think that in some way the first is the digital transposition of the other, but this is not the case.
This narrative has been used since the beginning to install in people’s minds the concept that Bitcoin is a new, more efficient form of gold and that gold is now something obsolete, wrongly.
Not even the creator of Bitcoin himself, under the pseudonym of Satoshi Nakamoto, has ever dared to compare Bitcoin to gold. The title of his initial document, called whitepaper, is in fact:
Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System(Bitcoin: a decentralized electronic cash system)
There are no allusions to digital gold.
Disclaimer:
The information provided does not constitute a solicitation for the placement of personal savings. The use of the data and information contained as support for personal investment operations is at the complete risk of the reader.
Contents
#1. Fake resemblances to gold 🚩
| Gold | Bitcoin | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Means of exchange | ✔ | Gold has been accepted for millennia while Bitcoin has little acceptance in the real world, subject to wild price fluctuations. | |
| Unit of account | ✔ | Gold has historically been used to denominate goods and currencies. Bitcoin is too volatile to be used as a stable benchmark. | |
| Portability | ✔ | ? | Gold contains in a few kilos the value of a villa. Bitcoin is easily transferable with the network, but it is easy to transport “nothing”. |
| Shortage | ✔ | Gold is scarce by nature. Bitcoin is scarce by convention, it can be replicated and its scarcity is highly relative. | |
| Durability | ✔ | ? | Gold never degrades over time. Bitcoin is incorruptible only as long as the “miners” continue to work. |
| Divisibility | ✔ | ✔ | Gold is divisible but with limits, it has therefore become the underlying of other instruments. Bitcoin is very divisible, but only because it is digital. |
| Fungibility | ✔ | ? | Every gram of gold or unit of Bitcoin is identical, regardless of where it comes from. Bitcoin is traceable though. |
| Store of value | ✔ | Gold is historically stable, immune to monetary inflation. Bitcoin is too young and volatile, due to fads and speculation. | |
| Difficulty of “extraction” | ✔ | Gold is difficult to mine in practice. Bitcoin mimics the scarcity of gold, but is relatively scarce in a sea of unlimitedness. |
Unit of account
Gold has historically served as a safe haven and unit of account, due to its stability, rarity, and universal acceptance. It has been used for centuries as the basis of monetary systems, providing a secure reference for the value of currencies. The gold standard, for example, ensured that every coin had a gold counterpart, strengthening confidence in the economic system.
Bitcoin, while sharing some of gold’s characteristics such as scarcity and divisibility, is still too volatile to fulfill this role. Its price fluctuations can be extreme and sudden, making it unsuitable as a basis for denominating goods or currencies. Its young age and the strong influence of speculative factors make it unstable.
Gold , on the other hand, is considered a durable asset, even in times of crisis. Bitcoin is more like a risky asset than a monetary reference. To become a truly solid alternative, it should drastically reduce volatility and gain widespread and stable trust over time.
Portability
Gold has an extraordinary density of value: in a few kilos it can contain the price of a villa. This characteristic makes it tangible and physically precious, with a real weight that corresponds to a concrete value. Transporting gold involves handling a physical, heavy and recognizable object, which retains its value over time independently of a network or an electronic system.
Bitcoin, on the other hand, is completely digital: it can be transferred instantly from one part of the world to another thanks to the network. This operational lightness is often seen as an advantage. However, precisely because it does not take up space and has no material form, Bitcoin can give the feeling of “transporting nothing”.
While gold is hidden in physical vaults, Bitcoin lives in private keys stored on electronic devices. Bitcoin’s extreme portability is a double-edged sword: convenient, but also intangible. In a way, it’s easier to trust a bar you can touch than an invisible file. Gold weighs, but that weight is also security.
Shortage
It is often said that Bitcoin is as scarce as gold, because it has a limited supply of 21 million units, just as gold is finite on Earth. This parallel is fallacious, however, because it ignores a fundamental difference between the two.
The Bitcoin protocol can be replicated infinitely, simply by copying and modifying the source code. There are already hundreds of variants of Bitcoin born from forks or new implementations. Furthermore, the maximum quantity of Bitcoin can be increased with a modification of the protocol, if the key actors (developers and “miners”) accept it. This means that its scarcity is not absolute, but imposed by modifiable technical rules.
Gold , on the other hand, cannot be created from nothing. It is a chemical element with unique properties that no other material possesses in its entirety. It cannot be artificially replicated and its availability is not subject to change at the will of a group of people. It is this fundamental difference that makes gold truly scarce, while Bitcoin depends on an artificial convention that can be changed over time.
Durability
Gold is one of the most chemically inert and corrosion-resistant materials. It can be left intact for millennia without deterioration, maintaining its value and integrity without the need for maintenance. It is a stable, physical resource that does not depend on digital infrastructure or complex mechanisms to preserve its existence.
Bitcoin has a huge computing power, which makes the network extremely secure against malicious actors who might try to alter the transaction history and, consequently, the balances. This security is based on the Proof of Work system, which requires a huge expenditure of energy and resources to validate transactions and protect the blockchain.
However, if Bitcoin were to stop being “mined,” the security of the network would be at risk. With fewer miners active, the difficulty of mining would decrease, making it easier to rewrite recent blocks and alter transaction history. In this scenario, even the ownership of some already mined Bitcoin could be at risk.
If gold were to cease being mined, the metal already present in the world would continue to exist without any vulnerability. It would not lose its value, nor would it be subject to manipulation or cyber attacks. This highlights a fundamental difference between the two: while Bitcoin depends on an active system to maintain its security, gold maintains its value and integrity independent of any human intervention.
Divisibility
Bitcoin is currently divisible to 1 one hundred millionth of a unit, but with changes to the protocol this division could be further increased. Its digital nature allows it to be fragmented without physical limits, making it theoretically usable for transactions of any amount.
Gold is also highly divisible, and is one of the most ductile and malleable metals. It can even be cut with a pair of scissors, although this method is clearly impractical for everyday use. However, the problem of gold’s divisibility has been overcome by the introduction of more efficient financial instruments, such as paper money and payment cards, which allow transactions to be made without the need to directly manipulate the physical metal.
The real difference is that dividing Bitcoin simply means dividing a “non-something,” a digital entity that has no intrinsic value. Unlike gold, which is a tangible asset with physical and industrial properties, Bitcoin has as its underlying asset only the hope that someone will buy it at a higher price in the future. Its divisibility, while technically interesting, does not change the fact that its value is purely speculative and based on market perception.
Fungibility
Every gram of gold is indistinguishable from another: once refined, it does not matter if it comes from Canada, South Africa or Russia, because the result is the same pure metal. The same goes for every unit of Bitcoin: one satoshi has the same value and the same function as another, regardless of who generated or transferred it. Both, therefore, share homogeneity as a characteristic.
However, there is a substantial difference between the two: Bitcoin is natively traceable. Every movement is recorded in the blockchain, making its complete history of transactions visible. This means that, despite being identical in terms of function, a Bitcoin can “carry with it” a memory of its past. Gold does not: once melted, it loses all ties with its history. This traceability can be an advantage, for example to combat illicit activities, but also a limitation for those seeking maximum privacy.
In practice, Bitcoin is the same on the surface, but with a memory. Gold, on the other hand, is mute: every gram is always new, always anonymous.
Store of value
Gold has survived centuries without losing its function as a store of value. Its limited quantity in nature and the difficulty of extraction make it immune to monetary inflation: no central bank can “print” gold at will. In times of crisis, people instinctively return to investing in gold, precisely because of its stability and independence from financial systems.
Bitcoin, while also having a predetermined maximum quantity, is still too young to be considered stable. Its history is short and strongly influenced by speculative waves, mass enthusiasm and sudden changes in market mood. Its ups and downs, often disconnected from real economic events, make it unsuitable as a long-term value preservation tool. Its price can double or halve in a few months, while gold tends to move slowly, following deeper logics.
Furthermore, Bitcoin is still exposed to technological trends and the influence of public figures or digital events. Gold, on the other hand, does not need advertising: its history speaks for itself.
Difficulty of “extraction”
The more gold is mined, the harder it becomes to find more; likewise, the more Bitcoins are released from the protocol, the harder it becomes to mine new ones. In simple terms, the underlying mechanism of Bitcoin is designed to simulate the scarcity of gold, increasing the difficulty of “mining” as the network grows.
However, the term “mining” associated with Bitcoin is misleading. There is no physical or real activity associated with this process. Bitcoins are not “mined” from somewhere but created digitally, after expensive mathematical calculation, and distributed as a reward to miners who validate transactions.
This terminological choice was made to reinforce in the collective imagination a
parallel with gold, giving Bitcoin an aura of scarcity and intrinsic value that, in reality,
is only a narrative construct. While gold is a tangible and finite resource, Bitcoin exists only in code, and its scarcity is artificially imposed by the protocol, not by real physical limits.
#2. Common Bitcoin mistakes 🚨
Bitcoin is not correlated to financial markets. False!
Bitcoin is often mistakenly described as a safe haven uncorrelated to financial markets, but this idea no longer holds up since 2020. Until 2019, it could still be argued that Bitcoin followed an independent dynamic, as it was less popular among institutional investors. However, starting in 2020, with the rise in popularity of the cryptocurrency and the massive influx of capital from hedge funds and companies, its correlation with traditional markets has become evident.
One piece of data that supports this thesis is the comparison between the USD value of Bitcoin and that of the Nasdaq 100 index with daily x3 leverage since 2018. The performance of both follows very similar patterns, with strong increases during periods of stock market expansion and sharp drops in times of crisis, highlighting a clear correlation.
In conclusion, Bitcoin has become a sort of amplified replica of the American technology stock market, which drives the entire global market. It is no longer a decorrelated asset, but rather a speculative instrument that closely follows the movements of traditional finance, responding to the same liquidity and risk cycles.
No asset has performed like Bitcoin. False!
The first known price of Bitcoin was $0.30 per unit on October 5, 2009. If we took this price and divided it by the current price (about $100,000.00) we would get a multiplier of more or less 333,000. Such growth over a 15-year period is something monstrous and, obviously, no other financial asset has achieved the same performance.
However, despite having recorded impressive growth over the long term, it is not the asset that has outperformed all the others for several reasons:
Different listing dynamics compared to IPOs
IPOs (Initial Public Offerings) of publicly traded companies are carried out with specific mechanisms, often based on auctions and detailed evaluations by large institutional investors. This means that, at the time of their entry into the market, the price of the shares is determined in a more structured way and with a solid demand base.
Bitcoin, on the other hand, did not have an official listing process, having been born as a decentralized and unknown project. In its early years, it was traded among a few enthusiasts without a real regulated market, and its initial value was almost zero. This led to a price evolution very different from that of traditional companies.
Other assets outperformed
If you look at the period from 2019 to today, there are assets that have outperformed Bitcoin in terms of percentage return. A notable example is Nvidia, whose value has increased dramatically thanks to the growing demand for chips for artificial intelligence, gaming, and data centers.
Nvidia has seen a gain of over 1000% since 2019, driven by the adoption of artificial intelligence and the growth in demand for GPUs. Bitcoin, in the same period, while having had a great performance, has not achieved percentage growth as extreme as some technology stocks.
In short, while Bitcoin has been one of the fastest-growing assets over the past 15 years, it is not necessarily the best performer at all times. Factors such as how it was initially listed and the performance of technology companies such as Nvidia show that there are other assets that have outperformed at certain times.
Big funds buy Bitcoin. False!
Large investment funds such as Vanguard and BlackRock hold Bitcoin, especially through financial instruments such as ETPs with “physical” underlying assets, but it is important to clarify one point: Bitcoin held does not belong to the funds themselves , but to the customers who subscribe to these products. The funds only act as intermediaries, holding the asset and offering regulated exposure to institutional and retail investors. Their interest is not ideological, but purely financial: they earn from management fees, exactly as they would do with any other product for which there is strong market demand.
Another example of speculative dynamics is MicroStrategy, which has purchased huge amounts of Bitcoin using investors’ money, effectively turning itself into a financial vehicle tied to the price of the cryptocurrency. This means that many of the institutional purchases are not the result of a real need to use Bitcoin, but rather speculative strategies based on the idea that the price will continue to rise.
Bitcoin belongs to no one. False!
Bitcoin belongs to those who program it, those who finance the development of the protocol, and the miners, who with their computing power guarantee the security of the network. In fact, miners do not only validate transactions, but also have a decision-making role in determining the evolution of the protocol, because, by choosing which software to run, they actually vote for or against the proposed changes.
A concrete example of this mechanism is what happened in 2017, during the dispute over the scalability of the network. Some developers and companies wanted to increase the block size to make transactions faster and cheaper. The proposal was brought forward by the Bitcoin Cash team, but the miners decided to keep their computing power on the original blockchain, supporting the Bitcoin Core client. This confirmed what the “real” Bitcoin was in the eyes of the market, while Bitcoin Cash had to separate into a new independent blockchain, continuing with its own separate development.
This event demonstrates how, although Bitcoin is often described as decentralized, in reality its future depends on who has control of the network , namely miners and developers, and not on a truly distributed governance among all users.
Bitcoin is as scarce as gold (or scarcer). False!
The maximum amount of Bitcoin has been arbitrarily set at 21 million, but this threshold is not immutable. With a change in the protocol and the approval of the majority of miners, the limit could be increased, although today this eventuality is considered unlikely. However, the simple fact that it is technically possible demonstrates that its scarcity is not absolute, but depends on the will of the community that manages it.
Furthermore, the concept of Bitcoin scarcity is only valid as long as a certain group of people continue to see it as the only true cryptocurrency. But nothing prevents the creation of infinite versions of Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies with similar or even better features. In this sense, Bitcoin scarcity is more of a subjective idea than an objective and universally shared principle.
Gold, on the other hand, has a real physical scarcity: its quantity on Earth and in the universe is limited and cannot be increased by an arbitrary decision. Furthermore, its unique properties (such as corrosion resistance and conductivity) cannot be replicated in any other element. No sustainable economic mechanism can generate more gold on demand, while with Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, a software change is enough to alter the rules, making the concept of scarcity much more fragile than with precious metals.
Bitcoin is a good medium of exchange. False!
A good medium of exchange must be backed by a stable underlying asset, whether a physical asset (like gold) or an authoritative body (like a central bank) that can guarantee its value over time. Without this stability, it becomes difficult for people and companies to use it for everyday transactions.
Bitcoin, on the other hand, is subject to strong price fluctuations, which makes it unsuitable as a true means of payment. A seller who accepts Bitcoin today may receive a very different amount tomorrow, depending on the market. This volatility makes it more like a speculative asset than a currency usable in everyday life.
Furthermore, those who use a Bitcoin payment card do not actually send Bitcoin to the seller, but fiat currency converted from cryptocurrency. This means that the vast majority of transactions still take place in fiat currency and that Bitcoin is not really used for direct exchanges. Purely cryptocurrency transactions, i.e. from sender to recipient without intermediaries, represent a minimal percentage and do not have a significant impact on the real economy.
Lightning Network is used for micropayments. False!
The Lightning Network was proposed as a solution to improve Bitcoin’s scalability, reducing costs and increasing transaction efficiency. The idea behind this system is to create a secondary layer that allows users to make payments outside of the main blockchain, with only the final transactions recorded on the Bitcoin network. However, after years of development, this technology has failed to establish itself as a permanent solution .
One of the main problems with the Lightning Network is that it requires a highly scalable Bitcoin blockchain to function optimally. This paradox calls into question its very usefulness: if the mainnet were scalable enough to support millions of transactions, the Lightning Network would not be necessary. Furthermore, managing payment channels and maintaining locked liquidity are further obstacles to its widespread adoption.
Currently, Bitcoin is still far from being an efficient payment system for everyday use. With a technical limit of a few dozen transactions per second, the network easily becomes congested, leading to high transaction costs and unpredictable confirmation times. This phenomenon has been evident in several bull markets, when fees have increased to unsustainable levels for small payments.
To address the scalability issue, some “alternative” cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin Cash, have taken a different approach, increasing the block size to allow for more transactions per second. However, this solution has not gained widespread adoption and, at least in terms of price, has not generated the same interest as Bitcoin.
The debate over Bitcoin’s scalability remains open, and while some proposals seek to improve the main network, others continue to develop second-layer solutions such as the Lightning Network, despite the many practical limitations that still today hinder their widespread use.
Bitcoin is not a cryptocurrency like the others. False!
Bitcoin is part of the cryptocurrency family, just like all the others, but it was simply the first to be created. Its historical primacy has given it an aura of superiority in the eyes of many investors and enthusiasts, but this does not mean that it is the only one or the best.
Those who argue that only Bitcoin has value often refuse to acknowledge the technological advances made by other cryptocurrencies, relegating them to a secondary role or even considering them scams. This attitude has led to the birth of derogatory terms such as “shitcoin,” used to label any cryptocurrency other than Bitcoin, regardless of its features or innovations.
In fact, the cryptocurrency world has evolved enormously since Bitcoin, with projects introducing more advanced technologies, such as smart contracts, faster transactions, and more efficient consensus mechanisms. Just because Bitcoin was the first, doesn’t mean it’s the only good one. In fact, many of its limitations have driven the development of more modern alternatives, which may eventually surpass it in terms of utility and adoption.
Bitcoin is energy. False!
Bitcoin is not energy, nor is it a form of energy exchange or storage. Some try to associate it with these concepts, but in reality Bitcoin is just a digital system that consumes energy to function, without any mechanism to store or return it.
Its Proof of Work system requires enormous amounts of energy to confirm transactions and “mine” new coins. However, this energy is immediately dissipated as heat and cannot be reused in any way. Unlike a battery, a power grid, or any other energy infrastructure, Bitcoin is just a computational mechanism, burning resources without any possibility of recovery.
If energy consumption were at least proportionate to its utility, one could argue about its value. But with an inefficient, slow and increasingly expensive network, the ratio of energy consumed to benefits is increasingly difficult to justify. Ultimately, Bitcoin is nothing more than a system that spends energy to exist, with no relation to its conservation or its actual exchange.
#3. Other things to consider 🚧
Technology is not the price
The price of Bitcoin is one thing, its underlying technology is another. Many investors make the mistake of thinking that because the price is high or rising, Bitcoin’s technology is superior or indispensable. In reality, these two things are not related.
Bitcoin is now technically outdated, with a slow, expensive, and poorly scalable network. However, its market value continues to be supported by speculative and psychological factors, rather than by real technological innovation. The price rises because people believe it will continue to rise, not because its technology offers something unique or irreplaceable.
Many more advanced cryptocurrencies, with faster transactions, lower costs, and better functionality, have proven to be technically superior to Bitcoin. But that doesn’t necessarily translate into price. Bitcoin’s market value depends more on narrative and speculation than on its actual technological utility, and that’s a distinction that’s often overlooked.
Bitcoin is no longer the best
Bitcoin, while the first of its kind, is no longer the best in terms of technology. Created in 2009, its code and infrastructure have remained relatively unchanged, while more advanced cryptocurrencies have emerged in the meantime, with more efficient, faster, and cheaper technologies.
One of its main limitations is scalability: the Bitcoin network can only handle a few transactions per second, a paltry number compared to traditional systems like Visa or new-generation blockchains. Transaction fees are often high, making it impractical for everyday payments. Solutions like the Lightning Network try to solve the problem, but they are not yet widely adopted and do not work as well as they should.
Bitcoin also has its challenges in terms of security and sustainability. Its consensus mechanism, Proof of Work, requires enormous amounts of energy, while other blockchains, such as Ethereum with Proof of Stake, offer a more efficient and sustainable alternative. Furthermore, new cryptocurrencies introduce more advanced smart contracts, greater privacy, and faster transactions, putting Bitcoin in an increasingly obsolete position.
Today, Bitcoin survives more for its historical status and speculation, rather than its technological superiority.
Bitcoin has no real underlying asset
True, there is little to add. An underlying would help to give a concrete value beyond the purely speculative one.
Personally, I believe that the underlying asset of Bitcoin, which coincides with the reason why some people buy it, is represented by:
- The hope in the future more people will see it as a means of exchange or a safe haven,
- The hope its price will rise in the future to generate a capital gain,
- The hope in the future both things will come true.
In all three cases, the common factor is “hope for the future that…” and not something measurable in current terms.
A problem that does not arise for gold, which is itself the underlying asset. The various applications of gold and its innate demand in human beings make it the perfect asset for measuring value.
Speculation exists on many things
Bitcoin, despite having no concrete fundamentals, continues to grow because many see it as a profit opportunity. As long as there is a belief that buying it will bring profit, new people will continue to invest in it, fueling a speculative cycle. This mechanism feeds on itself: the price goes up because demand increases, and demand increases because the price has gone up in the past.
In fact, Bitcoin is based on a purely speculative dynamic, where the value depends exclusively on the confidence of investors. It does not generate cash flows, does not represent a company with profits and is not linked to a productive economy. It is the largest decentralized gambling game, in which the gain of some derives from the losses of others, just as happens in markets without real fundamentals.
As long as people believe that the price will continue to rise, they will continue to pump money into the system, artificially propping it up. But if that confidence ever vanishes, the whole house could collapse, leaving many investors with nothing.
Poorly regulated market
Bitcoin is also vulnerable to speculation due to poor regulation. Its extreme volatility allows large investors to influence its price without any control, making it susceptible to market manipulation. Unlike stock markets, there are no regulatory bodies to protect investors from abuse or unfair practices.
Furthermore, the lack of protection for funds exposes users to enormous risks: if an exchange goes bankrupt or gets hacked, funds could be lost with no possibility of reimbursement. Fragmented regulation from country to country creates further uncertainty, allowing unscrupulous operators to exploit regulatory gaps to influence the market.
This lack of controls makes Bitcoin even more susceptible to speculation, with price fluctuations often unrelated to its actual use. In times of crisis, exchanges can block withdrawals, increasing panic and amplifying fluctuations. Without a regulated market, Bitcoin remains highly exposed to manipulation, making it a risky asset compared to traditional financial instruments.
Centralization of reserves
The price has been rising steadily over the past 15 years, yes, but who holds the majority of the reserves? What evidence do we have to suggest that these prices reflect spontaneous adoption by people… or “from below”?
Even large amounts of gold are held in the hands of a few governments and banks, but gold mining is a process that has been going on for centuries and has only accelerated with the use of newer, more efficient technologies.
The same cannot be said of Bitcoin, of which more than half of its total quantity has been “mined” in less than 10 years, with large funds and large investors ready to grab a gargantuan quantity while enjoying an anonymity and transaction speed unimaginable compared to what happened over the centuries for gold.
Not to mention the fact that some companies like MicroStrategy (which is the most famous) buy, with investors’ money, huge quantities of Bitcoin in order to own more and more of them and thus increasingly centralize the reserves.
In essence, Bitcoin would be the real candidate to be something for the few, not gold.
Addiction to “miners”
The Bitcoin network is constantly kept active by “miners”, who group transactions into blocks in exchange for a reward. If this reward were to become no longer attractive, the computing power on the network itself would begin to decrease until a new balance between the cost of computing and the reward is found.
However, if for some reason the computing power used were to decrease, in the face of a potentially greater applicable power, the security of the entire network could be jeopardized by allowing the manipulation of recent history more easily. Just one of these cases could create a great panic that would collapse confidence in Bitcoin.
Therefore, the activity of “miners” is constantly required to be able to store and use Bitcoins in complete safety. For gold , however, there is no need for all this because once refined and put away it can be stored or used without any mandatory third-party operations.
The graph is not a guarantee of the future
The fact that Bitcoin’s price has risen so far does not guarantee that it will continue to do so in the future, especially as media coverage reaches its peak. In the past, much of Bitcoin’s growth has been fueled by its growing notoriety and the entry of new investors, attracted by the idea of easy money. However, this mechanism cannot last forever.
Every financial asset follows a cycle: in the early stages, scarcity of information and gradual adoption allow for large increases in price. But when most people already know about Bitcoin, the number of new buyers dwindles, limiting demand. If everyone who wanted to invest has already done so, the growth potential fades .
Furthermore, financial markets do not move in a straight line: assets that have seen extraordinary returns in the past often reach a stage of maturity or decline. As regulation becomes more stringent and the market becomes saturated, Bitcoin may no longer have the same room for growth as it once did. Its future will depend not only on demand, but also on the evolution of the industry and the adoption of new technologies.
It’s digital only
The fact that Bitcoin is digital only is its greatest strength, but also its greatest limitation. Since it has no physical form, it relies entirely on technological infrastructure to function, making it vulnerable to accessibility issues, cyber attacks, and restrictive regulations.
Unlike tangible assets like gold or real estate, Bitcoin exists only in the network and requires electricity and connectivity to be used. This means that in the event of a blackout, government restrictions, or attacks on exchange servers, users could suddenly find themselves without access to their funds. Furthermore, those who lose their private keys have no chance of recovering their investment.
Its digital nature also exposes it to a more subtle risk: the evolution of technology. If more efficient, faster and regulated systems emerge in the future, Bitcoin could lose its dominant role in the cryptocurrency sector. Without a physical support or a mandatory use in the real economy, its survival depends exclusively on investor confidence, an element that can change over time.enza dipende esclusivamente dalla fiducia degli investitori, un elemento che può cambiare nel tempo.
#4. Psychological aspects 🧠
The phenomenon of cryptocurrencies, and in particular Bitcoin, is often accompanied by a narrative that depicts it as an instrument of social and economic revenge against the traditional banking system. After decades of financial crises, banking scandals and monetary policies considered unfair, many investors see Bitcoin as an act of rebellion against the financial elite that “has deceived us for years”.
This rhetoric is based on concepts of economic justice, decentralization, and financial freedom, but in reality, the main reason that drives people to buy cryptocurrencies is personal enrichment. Bitcoin is often presented as a revolution that takes away the power of banks and gives control of money back to citizens, but in practice, the main interest of investors is the hope of obtaining exorbitant profits in the shortest possible time .
This phenomenon becomes even more evident during periods of bull markets, when the narrative shifts strongly towards the idea that Bitcoin represents the “future of finance”, hiding the fact that the majority of buyers are motivated by simple speculation. The concept of financial freedom thus turns into a pretext to justify the accumulation of wealth without going through traditional channels.
This communication strategy creates a psychological effect of ideological confirmation: those who invest in Bitcoin do not do so (or say they do not do so) just to earn money, but to contribute to a “greater good”, namely the creation of a more equitable financial system. However, the real engine that fuels the sector is the hope of multiplying one’s capital by exploiting the increase in price over time.
The anti-establishment narrative is amplified by cryptocurrency proponents who demonize banks, accusing them of corruption and manipulation, while glorifying Bitcoin as an ethical alternative. But if Bitcoin were truly just a tool for economic freedom, many investors would not be interested in selling it to cash in on fiat gains.
Ultimately, the element of social revenge turns out to be a strategic curtain: a story that legitimizes personal interest by disguising it as an ideological battle. Those who enter the world of cryptocurrencies do so with the idea of changing the system, but often end up acting exactly like the speculators they criticize, aiming to maximize profits without worrying about the real economic and social implications.
“Eh but the price has gone up”
Yes, it is true, the price has gone up, even after I published the first version of this article. I would have no problem admitting that I am missing something… if only I understood what that thing is.
In fact, I think I was wrong to underestimate the ability of some people to sometimes make stupid decisions. Some of these decisions are dictated by the emphasis of embracing something new at all costs, others by the desire to become rich quickly and still others by the ability of some people to exploit the ability of others to make stupid decisions, for personal gain.
You know, nowadays we wonder how it was possible that so many people fell into the trap during the dotcom and mortgage bankruptcy bubble… maybe one day we will ask ourselves the exact same question regarding Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies.ni ci domanderemo la stessa identica cosa per quanto riguarda Bitcoin e le criptovalute.
#5. Final considerations 📝
What I have written so far are the reasons why I believe that Bitcoin is not gold, let alone digital gold.
That said, I would be dishonest not to say that, for better or worse, Bitcoin certainly represented a milestone in the history of computing and finance.
Thanks to Bitcoin, blockchain technology has spread very quickly, giving individuals and companies the opportunity to carry out projects that have even reached the point of involving the largest financial institutions.
This has allowed the improvement of this technology which could soon enter everyday life in the form of digital assets managed by institutional bodies.
Furthermore, for many people, the cryptocurrency phenomenon represented the first of many steps towards traditional finance. Without cryptocurrencies, this might never have happened, at least not so quickly.
Personally, I believe that the adventure of cryptocurrencies without an underlying asset or without an entity that can guarantee their value is over. But let’s not despair! I am convinced that there will be no shortage of opportunities in the future. It will be up to our ingenuity and a little bit of our courage to seize the opportunities to become the pioneers of a new world again.
Leave a Reply