Ray Dalio might have a point, but after reading this article, I feel like he may be starting to miss the mark. I really think Bitcoin is going to hit the mainstream big time. Future generations might not even see much of a difference between gold and Bitcoin. And honestly, they probably won't care either.
There’s gonna be no real distinction in their eyes. They’ll be pretty much the same.
The Golden Age of Crypto is Done
Every revolution eventually gets absorbed into the mainstream. What kicked off as crypto's challenge to the traditional financial system is now being pulled into the old ways, trading its rebellious spirit for things like ETFs, institutional backing, and the same banking systems it initially tried to escape.
This pattern is pretty common. Historically, revolutions start with the goal of breaking down old power structures. Once they gain control, the focus shifts to maintaining stability, turning radical ideas into established systems. Eventually, the movement hits a wall and to survive, it has to cozy up to what it once rejected: venture capital, trust from institutions, and regulatory acceptance. This means conforming, which often leads to the original goals being watered down or completely dropped. What started as a revolutionary movement ends up becoming just another norm. As the historian Hannah Arendt said, "the most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution."
Check out the full article.
Bros @Oshosondy has already created a thread with the same subject in the Gold vs. Bitcoin: Why Billionaire Ray Dalio Says There Is Only One Gold. I didn't see your username in that discussion, so you probably missed it, I think your opinion in this thread would be better if you put it in the bros @Oshosondy thread to add value to the discussion.
I think Dalio is right only in the very broad sense (i.e. hard money competes with hard money), but that does not make bitcoin and gold the same thing.
They overlap in narrative, not in mechanics. Gold is old, heavy, physical, politically tolerated because it's been around forever. Bitcoin is native to the internet, trivially portable, easy to verify, and a lot harder to fake your way through if you actually understand settlement.
Future kids might treat both as stores of value, sure, but they're not going to not notice the difference... unless they also think a sailboat and a fighter jet are basically the same because both cross water
Good point. Both can be stores of value, but Bitcoin fits the digital world much better since its easier to move and verify. Thats why its also used in online services like bitcoinbetting where fast transactions matter.
The world is not binary
Gold and bitcoin will coexist, I own both of them, just like many people.
And there is a long way for Bitcoin to become as important as gold....
Gold marketcap is 30 trillion and bitcoin is 1 trillion...
@bitmover. Agreed! This is what I am arguing. The future children today who will grow up on year 2050 will see bitcoin or gold and it will only be something similar for them. They will be ordinary, mainstream investments. Bitcoin might also be less volatile because of increased available liquidity.
I found very interesting that bitcoin allows us to buy gold with its technology
I own some Paxos Gold (PAXG) and Tether Gold (XAUT), ERC-20 tokens.
Although it is in another chain, those assets could be in a bitcoin chain such as omni layer or liquid.
Totally believe in the volatility part. If things will go where they are headed now, it will be a bigger cap -> bigger demand to push it around, meaning volatility will be less of a factor..
The similarity might not be in physical consolidation, but as stored value, right? It's always been like this for gold and silver. For gold, the increase in supply is around ~2% due to mining, but for BTC, it's fixed, so it can be more valuable in the long-term.
There are a lot of things that could change in the future, and maybe the best way to participate in them is to be in a good long-term position, like just holding BTC.
He says about it as if BTC is an anti-fiat invention.
it's not that at all - it's an alternative for everybody to use. Not to "destroy" or "overthrow" fiat.
In my opinion, a fixed and smaller supply is not enough to guarantee that Bitcoin will be worth more than gold in the long term. The value of an asset is determined not only by its supply but also by its acceptance and demand. If the demand for bitcoin is not great enough and does not cause a supply shock. Bitcoin is unlikely to surpass gold.
For me, need is more important. That's why the supply of gold increases annually, but that does not bring down the price of gold. On the contrary, it only raises the value and capital appreciation of gold over time. Humanity's demand for gold is enormous.
I disagree on the argument that a fixed supply will make the value of bitcoin higher. It will be demand that will do this. There are many altcoins in the cryptospace that have no value because there is no demand for these.
It is very headshaking that many people in this forum think that the fixed supply was the real cause or bitcoin's high value.