First 50 Follow and the mirror with over 150 followers =WMatic!

LongArticle (2)Puzzle: Is Bitcoin Really "Gold"?

Preface:
When someone questions the value of Bitcoin, gold becomes the best weapon. Over the years, people have become accustomed to comparing Bitcoin with gold, and many even estimate the final value of Bitcoin based on gold's market capitalization. All this stems from the similar and even superior properties of Bitcoin compared to gold.

Higher scarcity, stronger divisibility, greater security, and easier to use. Bitcoin possesses every attribute that gold has, and does even better in each aspect. It even comes with its own payment and accounting system. With such comparisons, hardly anyone can deny that Bitcoin will ultimately become the digital age's gold, or even replace gold.

In the mouths of speculators advocating the metaverse, the once thriving jewelry of golden times and the gold of turbulent times will soon be transformed into thriving NFTs and Bitcoin for turbulent times.

However, is this crude comparison really sufficient to explain the relationship between Bitcoin and gold? Or can we say that just because Bitcoin wins in a solitary and static comparison, it will definitely become and even replace gold?

Any conclusion that disregards historical movement is false. To judge the future of Bitcoin through gold, one must consider the differences between the historical contexts faced by both. Once we put our perspective into history, we will find that if gold is a winning hand from the start, Bitcoin is more like a hand with a strong starting combination, seemingly able to achieve an extraordinary outcome, but in reality, the journey is dangerous and long.

Nevertheless, it seems that the final round of betting is brewing a surging wave of cards, and this extraordinary hand may indeed become a reality.

How Gold Became Gold

History is woven from both inevitability and randomness. The emergence of gold has both its inevitability and its randomness. We cannot grasp random events well, so we can only single out its inevitability for discussion. The inevitability of gold comes from the inevitability of the general equivalent form. In the first four sections of the first volume of Marx's Capital, the inevitable position of the general equivalent in human transaction activities is determined. In a complex market environment, sooner or later, a general value form will emerge to replace the relative value form. This is because people are lazy, or rather, human activities tend to simplify complex things. When my uncle goes to the market to sell three baskets of radishes, compared to remembering that one radish can be exchanged for half an apple, or three oranges, or two ounces of sugar, he would prefer to remember the value of this pile of goods relative to one unit. Therefore, for my uncle and every seller in the market, there must be something universal that everyone wants to exchange, and use it as a unit for conversion.

This general equivalent form appears spontaneously in human trading activities, and no one can prevent its birth. In the beginning, various objects occupied this form, most of which were adapted to local conditions. Some primitive tribes chose to use stones, while others chose shells. With the arrival of agricultural civilization, the scale of human population began to expand, and city-states and even countries emerged, and interactions between regions became more frequent. Humans, once confined to a forest or a plain, began to possess the ability to cross mountains and seas. In this process, some changes were required for the general equivalent. First is portability, second is divisibility, third is scarcity, and fourth is its communicability, or cultural aspect.

The first three properties are interrelated. Scarcity to some extent increases portability because overall rarity raises the value of the unit, meaning that higher value can be transported with less weight. Divisibility simplifies value calculation and broadens application scenarios. Not only can it be used for bulk commodity transactions, but also for daily trivial transactions. Divisibility also includes ease of restoration. It is very difficult to reassemble a shattered stone into a stone of equal weight. This leads to inevitable losses due to fragments when using stones. The property of being easy to divide/restore maintains the scarcity of the object while indirectly improving portability. This is because transporting the whole is easier than transporting pieces. First, it is more difficult to steal a large whole weight than a large fragmented weight, and second, it is easier to store.

So when we consider the above three properties, the superiority of gold and silver stands out among the many competitors for the position of general equivalent. They satisfy all three conditions at the same time. As soft metals with a lower melting point, they are easy to divide and restore. In comparison, gold has a melting point of around 1000 degrees Celsius, while iron is as high as 1500 degrees. In terms of Mohs hardness, gold and silver have a hardness between 2.5 and 3, while iron reaches a level of 4.5. Gold's high density means that its weight is often higher than other metals of the same volume. In terms of scarcity, gold and silver production is lower compared to other common metals, with gold being even rarer than silver, which determines that gold's value is higher than silver's.

Finally, there is its communicability and cultural aspect. To be honest, communication is a property that is difficult to define. From gold's inherent properties, its ability to form a "gold" culture is partly related to its divisibility (malleability), scarcity,portability, and other value-related properties, and partly to its appearance. Its reflective, golden color, and so on, may naturally occupy a certain position in human vision. However, these considerations are too mysterious and difficult to verify, so they will not be explored in depth. However, the prosperity of gold culture is undeniable.
The inevitability of the general equivalent and the different demands for it at different stages of human civilization development have provided gold with some unique advantages in occupying this position. Therefore, gold has historically served as a value anchor, becoming the ultimate unit for storing value.

Based on these, when we examine the attributes of Bitcoin, we are amazed to find that it has all the attributes of gold, and even more so. In terms of scarcity, the total amount of Bitcoin is constant, and due to the loss of keys, it is generally in a deflationary state. In terms of divisibility and recoverability, it is even more outstanding than gold. As a digital product, no physical entity can compete with it in this field. The same goes for portability. The essence of Bitcoin is information, and its storage is also information. As long as you have a good memory, you don't even need to write it down. Just remember the private key, and you can take it with you wherever you go. That's why people say that Bitcoin is the gold of the digital age.

However, the flaw in this view has been pointed out at the beginning of the article. The reason why gold can become gold is that its unique advantages coincide with a historical period that needs these advantages. Nowadays, even gold has withdrawn from the center stage of transactions. Its high value is maintained due to historical inertia and the culture it has shaped over thousands of years.

Therefore, if we want to compare Bitcoin and gold, we must answer what the historical context faced by Bitcoin is like.

Bitcoin's historical predicament
If we compare the history of gold and Bitcoin at their birth, we can easily find that gold faced the beginning of human civilization, with unclear historical trajectories and vague directions of civilization. Bitcoin, on the other hand, was born in the prime of civilization, with many historical patterns already established and the shape of civilization roughly outlined. Since 1971, when Richard Nixon announced the decoupling of the US dollar from gold, the world has entered a new era of credit currency.

This stage has also appeared in human history.

In fact, the use of credit currency predates metal currency. As early as 3500 BC, there were records of credit in the temples of Mesopotamia. But the credit currency of that time was primitive, with all its value coming from power, whether that power was violence or religious garb worn after seizing power through violence. Therefore, in different power structures, the transmission of credit would inevitably encounter obstacles. How could a Babylonian who believed in Ishtar and Marduk convince an Egyptian who believed in Osiris and Ra that the loan information recorded in their temples was valuable? It's not that it's impossible, but the cost of circulating such credit was high. Metals like gold, on the other hand, greatly reduced this cost. There was no need to care where the credit came from; all that was needed was to trade the specific gold. In other words, gold was to defeat or squeeze into a primitive credit currency system. It had natural defects. Credit and metal, or chartalism and metallism in monetary history, have been intertwined in human trade history, and currency has always had a dual nature of credit and metal.

Today's credit currency system is much more mature and complete compared to the ancient civilizations of the two rivers. It is undeniable that today's currency still has a "metallic" nature. Note that the "metallic nature" here is a general term, and its connotation is actually the means of production, such as a large part of the fundamental value of the US dollar comes from its ability to settle oil. Although it is very different from the past gold standard currency system linked to metal, its form of involvement in human activities is similar. This "metallic nature," compared to the past, has been weakened too much, and the credit attribute of currency has been greatly elevated, so much so that it can be said that there is no money in the world today, only credit. The flow of money is the flow of credit.
The biggest advantage of this currency system is that it has broken free from the last shackles of metal, completely liberating the insatiable beast of capital from its cage. It can bring more prosperous regional golden ages and more impoverished regional poverty, as well as unprecedented risks and opportunities for humanity as a whole.

The faster development of human civilization, the faster iteration of technology, and the creation of unprecedented wealth and prosperity all require this new credit currency system to drive. It is the advanced use of future credit based on market efficiency that has given birth to a series of technologies that have changed human life.

For capital itself, its desire is endless replication, using human hands to complete its own growth. The "metallic nature" is like a fishbone stuck in the throat, like a thorn in the bone, for capital. Getting rid of it is a necessary link in the historical movement of capital.

In this extremely complete credit currency system, the "metal" in the narrow sense has completely withdrawn from the historical stage, while the "metal" in the broad sense, including oil, control of trade routes, industrialization capabilities, labor, and other means of production, plays a role in the credit system that is not as important as gold used to be.

It is undeniable that Bitcoin is better than gold, but even an excellent gold is still gold. Since gold has been eliminated by capital's endless pursuit of self-reproduction, how can Bitcoin take over and replace gold to compete with the old man Uncle Sam?

The old man has always been mainly about winning over the new county chief, always tempting him with the America Dream and Wall street dollar. Since the birth of Bitcoin, it has not only failed to become gold or a new value anchor, but it has also become a new playground for capital within this system. Its narrative is unrelated to the gold of the past but has become a financial derivative. It can be said that from the moment Bitcoin entered the current credit currency system, it and the gold of the past were completely different.

However, history is in motion, and the turning point may not be far away.

The Historical Opportunity of Bitcoin

In the first article of this series, we have already explained the relationship between the historical movement of trust and blockchain. As a dehumanizing patch for trust, the blockchain removes the authority of humans as the "trust transmission hub" on one hand. On the other hand, it can also be seen as an accelerator for trust in the capitalist movement. With trust becoming more affordable, more credit can be issued.

Let's briefly explain the difference between trust and credit here. Trust is a broader concept that encompasses all human interactions. Credit, on the other hand, is a quantified manifestation of trust, which can be used to calculate the degree of trust between individuals, individuals and groups, groups and groups, and between the present and the future.

From this perspective, the birth of blockchain and Bitcoin is not a counterbalance to the current credit-based monetary system but rather a tool to propel it towards further madness. However, this is just a story told within a narrow historical context. If we take a broader view of history, we might see another story. Credit is not infinite, and this stems from the limited lifespan of humans. The further into the future we want to overdraw credit, the more difficult it becomes. I can sign a 30-year mortgage, but not a 200-year mortgage, because 200 years later, I will be long gone. This simple truth cannot be overstated. The emergence of blockchain, to some extent, has accelerated the overdraft of credit, and when the future that can be overdrawn is exhausted, a huge cyclical crisis will inevitably come. This "credit" gap between the present and the future is often the time when history makes a major turn. Order will be reshaped by war, human civilization will fall into a great fire, and after being burned to the ground, there will be an opportunity to rebuild.

The historical opportunity of Bitcoin lies in the aftermath of this great fire.

When Master Huang, whether on his own or with the help of Wu Juren, finishes with dignity, Goose City will ultimately need to reshape its order. But the new Goose City is often no different from the old Goose City. The two major families remain the same. What difference does it make whether Master Huang or Master Wu sits in that fortress? There must be a master, right?

And blockchain may be the only difference in this cycle. It provides a new option for the generation that reshapes the order after the great fire:
A master is still needed, but the master doesn't necessarily have to be a person.

At that time, Bitcoin might also complete its transformation, from being entangled in the contemporary credit-based monetary system and becoming a financial derivative, to fulfilling its historical mission and becoming the cornerstone of a new monetary system.

Of course, when we talk about Bitcoin here, we mean cryptocurrencies with Bitcoin attributes in a broader sense, not just the token in Satoshi Nakamoto's nine-page white paper. After all, the future is full of uncertainties, and perhaps the current Bitcoin will die completely, but another new currency using cryptocurrency technology will emerge and become the basis for the future world.

But if Bitcoin doesn't die, and the future really unfolds as such, who can estimate its value?

$69,000? It might just be an insignificant valley.

This game of Texas Hold'em has reached its final hand, and whether Bitcoin can win with a Royal Flush remains to be seen.

This article does not constitute any investment advice and is merely the author's whimsical musings about the future. It should be taken as entertainment.