#bitcoin #Gold #freedom #money
Thoughts on Bitcoin in 2025 — and perhaps 2026?
I have been thinking about why almost all asset classes have risen — except Bitcoin. This is not about “numbers go up”, price targets, or predictions. It is an attempt to understand what is actually happening. Because the familiar narrative — fiat distrust combined with monetary expansion leading to higher Bitcoin prices — does not currently hold empirically.
One could say: that’s just how markets are, end of story. But that feels insufficient. When nearly all comparable assets rise while Bitcoin does not, it is worth looking closer. Especially because the most obvious comparison — gold — has risen strongly over the past years. This is not coincidence and not noise. It is a signal. A signal that the market currently treats Bitcoin differently from gold, even though Bitcoin is, rationally speaking, the better form of money.
Why Gold rises — and Bitcoin does not
Gold is currently benefiting from a very specific form of distrust: distrust toward the United States, its currency, and its political role. Those who want to move away from the dollar are looking for a store of value outside that system — but without introducing new dependencies.
This is where gold comes in. Not because it is efficient or modern, but because it has established itself over centuries as a stable reference point. Central banks, states, and large institutions turn to gold because they want distance from the dollar without taking on additional system risk. They cannot afford experiments.
Gold fits seamlessly into existing mental models, custody practices, legal frameworks, and political realities. It requires no new infrastructure, no conceptual shift, no technological understanding. Its slowness, archaism, and lack of innovation are precisely what make it attractive in this context.
Bitcoin, by contrast, is not “too weak” for these actors — it is too radical.
Why Bitcoin is not preferred despite everything
I do not believe the market thinks Bitcoin is broken. The recurring threat narratives do not explain the current situation. Quantum computers are not an imminent danger to Bitcoin, internal disputes within the ecosystem do not seriously threaten the protocol, and claims that Bitcoin is technically close to failure resurface regularly without offering real explanatory power.
These arguments appear again and again, but they are not the reason large actors currently avoid Bitcoin. At the very least, they do not explain why gold is being accumulated at the same time.
A simpler explanation seems more plausible: these actors choose what is easiest to handle. Not in terms of short-term profit, but in terms of institutional practicality. Gold is known. Gold is understood. Gold fits.
Bitcoin demands a different posture. Not because it is unsafe, but because it is final. Mistakes cannot be reversed. Responsibility cannot truly be delegated — only partially outsourced, and never completely. This consistency does not make Bitcoin worse, but it does make it uncomfortable.
Gold, security, and limited responsibility
Buying gold also involves responsibility. Physical gold must be stored, secured, and protected. The crucial difference lies not in the absence of responsibility, but in its limitation. Gold exists independently of whether someone did everything right. It remains a physical substance — even if access is lost, systems fail, or political circumstances change.
Bitcoin works differently. It is not an object, but a system. Ownership does not mean possessing something, but knowing and handling something correctly. If something goes wrong, nothing remains. Not damaged, not reduced — simply gone.
For large, conservative actors, this is a central obstacle. Not out of fear of Bitcoin, but because of its strictness. Gold tolerates mistakes. Bitcoin does not. Gold forgives negligence; Bitcoin does not.
This is why gold allows a return to familiar securities without requiring existential commitment. It does not force a fundamental reconsideration of what ownership, responsibility, and finality really mean. Bitcoin does — even when one tries to fit it into existing structures.
This is not a technical argument. It is a cultural one.
Nothing has changed in Bitcoin — but something has changed in the world
Bitcoin itself has not changed. The protocol works as before. The rules are the same. Its properties remain unchanged. Nothing has “happened” to Bitcoin.
What has changed is the decision of the world. In a phase of heightened uncertainty, geopolitical tension, and structural anxiety, many actors turn to what is old, familiar, and seemingly indestructible — the shining metal that has served as a last anchor for centuries.
This is not a judgment and not an endorsement. It is a description. Bitcoin remains what it is. That it is not preferred at the moment says less about Bitcoin than about the kind of security the world is currently seeking.
Acht Jahrhunderte alt –
und traurigerweise aktueller denn je.
Bani-Adam
(aus dem „Golestān“)
Wie Glieder sind die Menschen verbunden
Als Teil des Ganzen für gleich empfunden
Hat Schicksal ein Glied mit Schmerz versehen
So auch die anderen voll Leid vergehen
Wer kein Mitleid mit anderen kennt,
Ist unwürdig, dass man Mensch ihn nennt.
— Saadi (ca. 1210–1292), persischer Dichter, 13. Jahrhundert
