Regardless of whether in the crypto ecosystem or the non-crypto ecosystem, those who hold a firm belief in Bitcoin (including us) have long believed in one viewpoint:

Bitcoin is "digital gold."

I have never doubted this viewpoint.

However, in recent years, the increasingly similar trends between Bitcoin and the U.S. stock market, as well as the growing divergence from gold, have led me to question this viewpoint.

Because if Bitcoin is truly what we imagine it to be—"digital gold"—then after all these years, with the community expanding so much, and holders transitioning from a small group of early enthusiasts to an increasingly mainstream group of institutional investors, its consensus should have strengthened many times over. People's faith in it should have solidified many times over, and under this reinforcement, it should behave more and more like gold.

But if we carefully reflect on Bitcoin's performance in recent years, we can see that it has not behaved more like gold.

A typical behavior of gold is: when the world becomes increasingly chaotic and people's confidence in fiat currency (especially the U.S. dollar) or the existing financial system weakens, people embrace gold and abandon fiat currency.

If we look back at not-so-distant history, we can see this effect of gold more clearly.

Before the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, the world's fiat currencies were pegged to the dollar, and the dollar was pegged to gold. In the earlier industrial revolution period, the pound and the fiat currencies of many developed capitalist countries were directly pegged to gold, which is what we know as the gold standard.

In those times, all measures of value were ultimately gauged in gold.

If the Bretton Woods system and the gold standard are too unfamiliar to us, we might consider the historical descriptions of the financial situation of the Nationalist government in its last two years on the mainland:

The rampant issuance of gold yuan notes and silver dollar notes led to the complete loss of credibility of fiat currency, and people only used gold for large transactions. "Yellow fish" was the nickname people had for gold at that time.

Throughout human history of 5,000 years, gold has played this role for the vast majority of the time. In most periods, whether for nations or individuals, the ultimate measure of wealth has been how much gold one possesses.

Has Bitcoin's evolution and development achieved this effect? Or will we increasingly agree that when people lose confidence in fiat currency and the existing financial system, they will embrace Bitcoin and use Bitcoin as a standard to measure their wealth?

We might say so, but what we say often is not as honest as our actual actions.

If we hold one Bitcoin, and its market price was $100,000 yesterday, but today it plummets to $50,000, if we trust Bitcoin more or measure our wealth in Bitcoin, we should remain calm and indifferent.

But I believe 95% of holders would likely be lamenting, "If only I had sold yesterday."

This actually indicates a greater trust in the dollar, measuring their wealth in dollar terms.

Let’s imagine another historical scenario to see what would happen if this scenario occurred with gold:

On a certain day in 1948, in Shanghai, yesterday one yellow fish could be exchanged for 1 million gold yuan notes, but today one yellow fish can only be exchanged for 500,000 gold yuan notes. Would the people of Shanghai be scrambling to convert their gold yuan notes into yellow fish, or would they be lamenting, "If only I had sold the yellow fish yesterday"?

I think the answer is self-evident; who would still dare to trust gold yuan notes?

This comparison helps clarify the difference between Bitcoin and gold.

In fact, in the early days of Bitcoin's birth, those idealistic geeks were the ones who truly believed in Bitcoin; they were more willing to measure their crypto assets in Bitcoin terms. Conversely, as crypto assets have developed to the present, with more and more mainstream individuals and institutions entering this ecosystem, an increasing number of holders trust stablecoins more and prefer to measure their crypto assets in dollars (stablecoins).

Of course, we often see some people claim to hold a certain amount of Bitcoin, but in my view, this does not mean they trust Bitcoin more or measure their assets in Bitcoin; rather, they trust the dollar value of Bitcoin after conversion, caring more about how much their Bitcoin is worth in dollars. Here, Bitcoin is akin to real estate as a wealth asset.

Gold took 5,000 years to establish its financial and monetary attributes in history and in people's hearts, but Bitcoin does not have such a history.

Lacking the tempering and honing of history, at least for now, it is hard to say that Bitcoin resembles gold.

There is another viewpoint that considers Bitcoin as a hedge against the real world.

However, if we carefully review the crises that have occurred in real life over the years, we will find that in the early years, some people treated Bitcoin as a hedge; for example, during the financial crisis in Cyprus, some funds flowed into Bitcoin. But as time goes on, when people lose confidence in the real world (such as a stock market crash), more and more individuals and institutions seem not to buy more Bitcoin to hedge against this risk, but rather convert Bitcoin into stablecoins or directly into dollars to avoid current risks.

Such behavior does not resemble a hedge against real-world crises in any way.

So what exactly is the attribute of Bitcoin?

I think it resembles a special collectible of the digital age, a collectible imbued with special significance.

It is not like gold; saying it is a "store of value" is also quite forced.

Qi Baishi's paintings are also limited; they are valuable and worth a lot, but we refer to them as collectibles, not as "XX gold," nor do we usually say they are a "store of value."

For those paintings, we know:

When the economy is booming and the wealthy are willing to spend lavishly, their prices will soar.

But when the economy is sluggish and the wealthy start to calculate, their prices will decline.

"In prosperous times, collectibles; in chaotic times, gold," those paintings are collectibles of prosperous times.

In this regard, Bitcoin is quite similar:

When the U.S. stock market is soaring and institutions are willing to spend lavishly, Bitcoin's price will soar.

When the U.S. stock market is sluggish and institutions start to calculate, Bitcoin's price will decline.

The correlation between Bitcoin and the U.S. stock market (economy) resembles the correlation between collectibles and the economy.

Thus, Bitcoin, to some extent, resembles a collectible, a collectible whose value has been imbued with another meaning. Although it cannot be appreciated, its history, its special technology, and the historical context of its birth give it characteristics that other collectibles do not possess.

If this is the case, then its future trends will either strongly rely on the performance of the U.S. stock market (U.S. economy) or strongly depend on the development of the crypto ecosystem economy; it is unlikely to play the role of a risk hedge like gold.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。