# Bitcoin and Inflation: The Search for Digital Gold

Part I: What the evidence says

The 2021-2022 case study

Forty years of the most important inflationary episode since 1949 threw us a natural experiment. The U.S. Consumer Price Index soared to 9.1% between 2021 and 2022 for the steepest increase since 1981. This wasn't theoretical. Inflation was very real, consuming real purchasing power, and investors required a real cure.

The relationship we’re testing is straightforward: ……When Inflation increases → Bitcoin Price must go up (or atleast stay flat) – If... What actually happened? When Inflation ↑ to 9.1% → Bitcoin ↓ by 75%.

Bitcoin has tumbled from $65,000 to less than $16,000. Not a dip, not a correction — but a 75% dive that ran through much of 2022 as inflation ravaged the nation. Meanwhile, traditional hedges did their work. Gold advanced about 13 percent, for a positive real return of nearly 3.9 percent. TIPS did their inflation-protection thing, to the letter: They delivered Inflationsaurus Rex, in the form of that 9.1% increase exactly. Real estate usually retained 0% nominal purchasing power. The S&P 500, which is down by 15%, even outperformed Bitcoin by a full 60 percentage points.

It’s like buying insurance for your house from fire. A fire happens. Instead of forking over, the insurance company torches your garage as well. That is what Bitcoin did in the face of inflation, it exacerbated the harm instead of providing shield.

Ludwig von Mises synthesized these insights in his 1912 "Theory of Money and Credit," arguing that money emerged spontaneously from market processes as the most marketable commodity, not from government decree. Mises also contributed the calculation problem—the insight that rational economic calculation requires genuine market prices, which are impossible under central planning or with manipulated currencies.

The Austrian Business Cycle Theory directly supports Bitcoin adoption. According to this theory, artificial credit expansion by central banks creates unsustainable booms followed by inevitable busts. When central banks print money and artificially lower interest rates, they encourage malinvestment in long-term projects that wouldn't be profitable at market interest rates. Each intervention creates new distortions requiring further interventions—what Austrians call the "interventionist spiral."

Friedrich Hayek's Nobel Prize-winning work on the knowledge problem provides perhaps the strongest theoretical foundation for Bitcoin. Hayek argued that the information necessary for efficient resource allocation is dispersed across millions of individuals and can never be centrally collected or processed. Market prices serve as a decentralized information system, coordinating the knowledge and plans of dispersed actors.

This insight devastates the case for central banking. Central bankers, no matter how intelligent or well-intentioned, cannot possibly have the information necessary to set optimal interest rates or money supply growth. Their interventions inevitably create distortions that propagate throughout the economy.

Bitcoin, in this framework, represents the ultimate application of Hayekian insights to money itself. Rather than relying on central bank technocrats to determine monetary policy, Bitcoin uses algorithmic rules and market forces to coordinate monetary decisions across a global network of participants.

### The Digital Gold Properties

Bitcoin earned the "digital gold" moniker through fundamental similarities with the precious metal. As Michael Saylor explains: "Bitcoin is Digital Property and is going to be adopted as a store of value/asset in every nation that allows citizens to own private property" (Saylor, 2024). He further argues that "when banks stop working, the world turns to Bitcoin" (Saylor, 2024).

The comparison rests on several key properties. First, scarcity: Gold's finite supply in the Earth's crust mirrors Bitcoin's algorithmically capped supply of 21 million coins. Second, independence from government control: Neither gold nor Bitcoin can be printed or created at will by central banks. Third, durability: As Saylor puts it, "The expected life of a Bitcoin is 3950 years" compared to companies (18 years) or buildings (100 years) (Saylor, 2021).

Bitcoin Magazine describes Saylor's view that "Bitcoin is digital freedom, destined to disrupt every fiat institution" and represents "the foundation of a moral, incorruptible monetary network" (Bitcoin Magazine, 2025). Recent analysis suggests that "Bitcoin triumphs over banks and network structures will surpass state control" (Blockchain News, 2025).

The inflation hedge narrative follows naturally. As one recent analysis notes: "Bitcoin's fixed supply of 21 million coins could replace the Fed's 'gyrating rates' with an 'algorithmic' monetary policy" (AInvest, 2025).

### The Microeconomic Model

To formalize these insights, we can construct a microeconomic model that explains Bitcoin demand as a function of inflation expectations, institutional adoption, and network effects. This builds on recent work by Hassan (2025) and earlier analysis by Blundell-Wignall (2014) and Kristoufek (2015).

Bitcoin's supply is algorithmically determined:
**S(t) = min(21,000,000, S₀ + ∫₀ᵗ r(τ)dτ)**

Where r(τ) follows the halving schedule: 50 BTC per block initially, halving every 210,000 blocks. This creates absolute scarcity—a vertical supply curve in the long run.

Demand can be decomposed into three components:
**D(t) = D_transaction(t) + D_store_of_value(t) + D_speculative(t)**

The store of value component—the inflation hedging function—can be modeled as:
**D_store_of_value(t) = α·[π_expected(t) - r_real_alternatives(t)]·W(t)**

Where π_expected(t) is expected inflation, r_real_alternatives(t) is the real return on alternative hedges (gold, TIPS, real estate), W(t) is total investible wealth, and α is a preference parameter reflecting Bitcoin's perceived hedge effectiveness.

This formulation explains why Bitcoin demand should increase with inflation expectations but decrease when alternative hedges offer better risk-adjusted returns. The parameter α captures market perception of Bitcoin's hedge properties—it starts near zero when Bitcoin is unknown, potentially approaches 1 as Bitcoin matures.

The transaction demand component exhibits network effects:
**D_transaction(t) = β·[N(t)]^γ·T(t)**

Where N(t) is the number of network participants, T(t) is the volume of economic activity requiring censorship-resistant settlement, β is a scaling parameter, and γ > 1 captures network effects (Metcalfe's Law suggests γ ≈ 2).

Setting supply equal to demand, we get equilibrium price:
**P(t) = [α·[π_expected(t) - r_alternatives(t)]·W(t) + β·[N(t)]^γ·T(t) + D_speculative(t)] / S(t)**

This model predicts that Bitcoin price should correlate with inflation expectations when α > 0. The correlation should strengthen as Bitcoin matures and α increases over time. Network effects should create non-linear adoption curves. Fixed supply creates price volatility as demand fluctuates.

Is it like a city's real estate market with absolutely fixed land supply? Any increase in demand translates directly to price increases because supply can't respond. That's Bitcoin's economic model—except even more extreme because you can't even build upward.

### Balaji's Network State Vision

Balaji Srinivasan represents the most sophisticated modern development of Austrian monetary theory, combining traditional hard money arguments with cutting-edge insights about networks, technology, and geopolitics. His 2022 book "The Network State" provides the theoretical framework for understanding Bitcoin not just as an investment but as the foundation for entirely new forms of social and economic organization.

Srinivasan defines a network state as "a highly aligned online community with a capacity for collective action that crowdfunds territory around the world and eventually gains diplomatic recognition from pre-existing states" (Srinivasan, 2022). This isn't science fiction—it's a systematic framework for understanding how digital-first communities can bootstrap physical presence and eventually political sovereignty.

The key insight is that Bitcoin enables what Srinivasan calls "economic sovereignty" before political sovereignty. Traditional nations are "geographically centralized but ideologically disaligned," while network states are "ideologically aligned but geographically decentralized" (CoinDesk, 2022). By using Bitcoin as their native currency, network states can conduct international commerce, prove their economic viability on-chain, and accumulate sovereign wealth without depending on traditional banking infrastructure.

At Bitcoin Asia 2025, Balaji articulated this vision: "When Bitcoin wins, the Fed loses control. When the Fed loses control, Asia wins" (Cryptotimes, 2025). His point is that dollar debasement ultimately benefits countries with hard assets and productive capacity—particularly Asian exporters who can accumulate Bitcoin rather than depreciating dollars.

Perhaps Balaji's most provocative thesis involves "super-bitcoinization"—the idea that hyperinflation has already begun, but it's measured in Bitcoin terms rather than CPI terms. He calculates that over Bitcoin's 16-year history, the dollar has depreciated at roughly 10.41% per month in Bitcoin terms—a rate that qualifies as hyperinflation by any reasonable definition.

His million-dollar bet in March 2023 wasn't really about Bitcoin reaching $1 million in 90 days—it was about demonstrating that such outcomes are possible given the underlying monetary dynamics. His willingness to lose $1.5 million to make this point exemplifies what he calls "costly signaling"—putting significant resources at risk to demonstrate genuine conviction.

### The Theoretical Case Summarized

The theoretical case for Bitcoin as digital gold rests on solid intellectual foundations. Austrian economics provides the framework: money emerges from market processes, central planning creates distortions, and sound money requires properties that Bitcoin uniquely provides in digital form.

The properties argument is compelling. Bitcoin shares gold's scarcity, durability, and independence from government control while adding superior portability, divisibility, and verifiability. If gold served as money for millennia with inferior properties, why shouldn't Bitcoin—with superior properties—serve the digital age?

The network effects model suggests exponential growth potential. As adoption increases, utility increases, driving further adoption in a positive feedback loop. Unlike gold, whose utility is constant regardless of adoption, Bitcoin becomes more useful as more people use it.

The institutional thesis adds another layer. As pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, and corporations begin allocating to Bitcoin, demand could dwarf any inflation-hedging behavior by retail investors. The 2024 ETF approvals were just the beginning of this institutional wave.

Jack Dorsey captured this optimism: "Bitcoin will unite a deeply divided country (and eventually: world)" by providing shared infrastructure for value transfer that transcends political boundaries (Dorsey, 2021).

All these arguments create a compelling theoretical case. Bitcoin should be digital gold. It should hedge against inflation. It should appreciate as fiat currencies debase. The logic is internally consistent and intellectually rigorous.

Which makes the empirical failure we documented in Part I all the more puzzling.

## Part III: The Uncomfortable Mirror - Gold Itself

### Gold's Surprising Track Record

Before we judge Bitcoin too harshly for failing as an inflation hedge, we need to examine gold's own record. The results are uncomfortable for anyone who believes in simple monetary narratives.

Gold's reputation as an inflation hedge stems from both theoretical foundations and historical performance, though academic research reveals a more complex relationship. From economic theory, gold should function as an inflation hedge because of the Fisher Effect. As Beckmann and Czudaj (2012) explain: "From a theoretical point of view, an increase in expected inflation will force investors to buy gold, either to hedge against the expected decline in the purchasing power of money."

The logic seems airtight. Gold is a tangible commodity whose value should theoretically rise with general price levels, maintaining purchasing power over time. Gold served as the basis for monetary systems for centuries, creating psychological associations with sound money and inflation protection.

But here's what the research actually shows about gold's inflation-hedging properties. The CFA Institute (2024) found that "the relationship between gold and inflation isn't stable. There are times when gold's relationship with inflation is positive, and times when it's negative." They discovered that "changes in headline PCE inflation are not meaningfully correlated with changes in the spot price of gold" with correlation coefficients ranging from -0.004 to 0.162.

Think about those numbers. A correlation of 0.162 means gold explains roughly 2.6% of inflation's variation (0.162² = 0.026). Is it like claiming your umbrella works because it keeps 2.6% of the rain off? That's gold's inflation protection according to rigorous analysis—statistically indistinguishable from random chance.

Van Hoang et al. (2016) tested gold across multiple countries and timeframes. Their conclusion: "gold is not a hedge against inflation in the long run in all cases. In the short run, gold is an inflation hedge only in the UK, USA, and India."

Let's translate that finding into a simple relationship:
**Gold Hedge Effectiveness = f(country, time horizon)**

Where:
- Long run: Generally fails across countries
- Short run: Works in 3 countries (UK, USA, India)
- Other countries: No consistent hedge properties

The historical performance tells an even more complex story. During the 1970s inflation surge, gold gained over 1,000%—the kind of performance that creates legends. But Discovery Alert (2025) notes: "during the 1980s, when 10-year Treasury yields reached over 15% while inflation was around 10%, gold prices declined significantly."

Here's the relationship that actually held:
**1970s: Inflation ↑ 100% → Gold ↑ 1,000% (10x inflation)**
**1980s: Inflation stays high → Gold ↓ 50% (loses half its value)**

The pattern suggests gold doesn't hedge against inflation—it hedges against unexpected changes in inflation. Once inflation expectations adjust, gold loses its protective power.

### Why Gold's Failure Matters for Bitcoin

If gold—with thousands of years of monetary history—fails as a consistent inflation hedge, what hope does 16-year-old Bitcoin have?

Gold has every advantage Bitcoin claims, plus actual history. Gold has been valued across every human civilization. It survived the fall of empires, world wars, and countless currency collapses. It has physical presence you can hold. Central banks still hoard it as the ultimate reserve asset.

Yet even gold shows correlation with inflation of essentially zero in many periods and countries. Even gold fell during high inflation in the 1980s. Even gold failed to provide consistent protection when investors needed it most.

The implications are profound. If the asset that defines "store of value" for humanity fails basic inflation hedge tests, perhaps we're testing for the wrong thing. Perhaps inflation hedging isn't what makes something money. Or perhaps—and this is the troubling possibility—there's no such thing as a reliable inflation hedge, just assets that occasionally correlate with inflation by chance or during specific historical moments.

### The Pattern Behind the Pattern

Looking at both gold and Bitcoin, a meta-pattern emerges about how supposed inflation hedges actually work:

**The Inflation Hedge Lifecycle:**
1. **Crisis Period:** Asset gains dramatically during unexpected inflation (gold in 1970s, Bitcoin 2010-2019)
2. **Narrative Formation:** Success creates compelling story about inflation protection
3. **Institutional Adoption:** Professional investors enter based on narrative
4. **Financialization:** Asset becomes integrated into traditional portfolios
5. **Correlation Decay:** Hedge properties disappear as asset becomes just another financial instrument

Is it like a underground band that gains credibility by being different, gets discovered, signs with a major label, and becomes indistinguishable from every other commercial act? That's the lifecycle of inflation hedges—authentic until successful.

Gold went through this cycle over decades. Bitcoin compressed it into years. The very success that validates an inflation hedge destroys its hedging properties.

### What Makes Something an Inflation Hedge?

The research on gold forces us to reconsider what we mean by "inflation hedge." The academic evidence suggests three distinct concepts that often get conflated:

**Type 1: Purchasing Power Preservation**
Maintains value against a basket of goods over time. Gold fails this test in many periods. Bitcoin fails it spectacularly.

**Type 2: Inflation Correlation**
Price moves up when inflation increases. Gold shows weak and unstable correlation. Bitcoin shows essentially zero correlation.

**Type 3: Crisis Alpha**
Outperforms during monetary regime changes or currency collapses. Gold succeeded in the 1970s. Bitcoin might succeed in future crises—we don't know yet.

Most investors want Type 1—stable purchasing power preservation. The narrative sells Type 2—reliable inflation correlation. What both gold and Bitcoin actually provide, occasionally, is Type 3—crisis alpha during rare monetary disruptions.

The equation looks like this:
**Hedge Value = α(stable preservation) + β(inflation correlation) + γ(crisis alpha)**

For an ideal inflation hedge: α = high, β = high, γ = bonus
For gold: α = low, β = near-zero, γ = historically high but unpredictable
For Bitcoin: α = negative, β = zero, γ = unknown but theoretically high

### The Lesson from Gold

Gold's mixed record as an inflation hedge teaches us something important: monetary narratives often diverge from monetary realities. We tell ourselves stories about gold preserving purchasing power across millennia. The data tells a different story—gold is a volatile commodity that occasionally correlates with inflation but often doesn't.

The same dynamic applies to Bitcoin, only more so. The narrative says Bitcoin is digital gold, improved in every way. The data says Bitcoin is a speculative technology asset with no demonstrated inflation-hedging properties in developed markets.

But here's the crucial insight from studying gold: failure as an inflation hedge doesn't mean failure as money. Gold remained the foundation of monetary systems for thousands of years despite providing unreliable inflation protection. People valued gold for other reasons—scarcity, durability, universal recognition, psychological power.

Bitcoin might follow the same path. It might fail every empirical test of inflation hedging yet still succeed as a monetary asset. The properties that make something money and the properties that make something an inflation hedge might be entirely different.

That's the uncomfortable lesson from gold's mirror. The inflation hedge narrative might be wrong for both gold and Bitcoin. But that doesn't necessarily mean the monetary revolution narrative is wrong too.

The question becomes: if neither gold nor Bitcoin reliably hedge against inflation, what are they actually doing in portfolios? And why do people keep believing they provide protection they demonstrably don't deliver?

The answer might lie not in what these assets do, but in what people need them to do. The next part explores where that need becomes reality—in countries where traditional monetary systems have already failed.

## Part IV: The Geography of Money - Where Bitcoin Works

### The Context Equation

Bitcoin's effectiveness as an inflation hedge depends entirely on context. We can capture this mathematically with the equation from our original microeconomic model:

**D_BTC = α × (π_expected - r_alternatives) × W**

Where D_BTC represents demand for Bitcoin as a hedge, π_expected is expected inflation, r_alternatives is the real return on alternative hedges, W is total investable wealth, and α is the crucial preference factor—how much people trust Bitcoin versus alternatives.

The variable α changes everything. In the United States, α hovers near zero. Americans have functioning banks, liquid gold ETFs, TIPS bonds, stable property rights. They can access traditional hedges with a few clicks. When inflation rises from 2% to 9%, they don't need Bitcoin for transactions or wealth preservation. Even if π_expected increases, D_BTC barely moves because α is so low.

But in Lebanon, Argentina, or Turkey, α approaches 1. Traditional financial infrastructure has failed or become actively hostile to citizens' interests. Banks freeze deposits, governments impose capital controls, currencies collapse overnight. In these contexts, Bitcoin's 60-80% volatility looks stable compared to local currency depreciation of 90%+ annually.

The equation predicts exactly what we observe: Bitcoin works as an inflation hedge precisely where traditional economic infrastructure has failed, but fails where that infrastructure remains intact. It's not about inflation per se—it's about institutional trust and available alternatives.

### Lebanon: When Everything Else Fails

Balaji often cites Lebanon as Bitcoin's proof of concept, and the data supports his emphasis. Since 2019, Lebanon's lira has collapsed amid hyperinflation peaking at 90% annually between 2020-2022. The banking system essentially ceased functioning—depositors couldn't access their own money, dollar withdrawals were banned, and trust in financial institutions evaporated.

As Balaji observed at Bitcoin Asia 2025: "When the faith in the Lebanese pound went to zero, Bitcoin was there and it just went vertical" (Cryptotimes, 2025). This isn't metaphorical. Bitcoin adoption literally went vertical. Locals used Bitcoin for remittances, savings, and even daily transactions via Lightning Network apps. While the lira lost 99% of its value, Bitcoin—despite its notorious volatility—provided relative stability.

Think about what this means. Is it like being in a sinking ship where the "lifeboat" is also taking on water, but at least it's floating? That's Bitcoin in Lebanon—imperfect but infinitely better than the alternative of drowning with the lira.

The Lebanese case demonstrates our equation in action:
- **α = ~0.9** (extreme preference for Bitcoin over failed alternatives)
- **π_expected = 90%** (annual inflation rate)
- **r_alternatives = negative** (banks frozen, capital controls)
- **Result:** Massive Bitcoin demand, local premium over global prices

### Argentina: Chronic Inflation Creates Permanent Demand

Argentina presents a different pattern—not acute crisis but chronic monetary dysfunction. With inflation exceeding 200% in 2023, Argentinians have decades of experience with currency debasement. They've developed sophisticated workarounds: dollar black markets, foreign bank accounts, complex financial engineering to preserve wealth.

Bitcoin fits naturally into this ecosystem. Citizens convert pesos to Bitcoin or USDT via exchanges like Lemon Cash to preserve value. Bitcoin ATMs and peer-to-peer trading exploded in 2024, with Bitcoin often outperforming local assets during peso devaluations.

The Argentine context shows a middle ground in our equation:
- **α = ~0.5** (moderate preference, Bitcoin one option among several)
- **π_expected = 200%+** (chronic high inflation)
- **r_alternatives = restricted but available** (dollars accessible via black market)
- **Result:** Steady Bitcoin adoption as part of diversified survival strategy

Argentina demonstrates that Bitcoin doesn't need to be the only option to be valuable. In a portfolio of inflation hedges—dollars, real estate, Bitcoin—it serves a specific role: liquid, transferable, censorship-resistant value storage.

### Turkey: Political Risk Drives Adoption

Turkey faced 70-80% inflation in 2022-2023 due to President Erdogan's unorthodox monetary policies—he believes high interest rates cause inflation, the opposite of conventional economics. This created a unique situation: inflation driven not by external shocks but by deliberate policy choice, making traditional hedges uncertain.

Turkish citizens faced a dilemma. The government restricted foreign currency purchases and gold imports. Real estate became overpriced. Stock markets reflected political uncertainty. In this context, Bitcoin and stablecoins offered an escape valve. Trading volumes on platforms like BtcTurk spiked, with Bitcoin serving as what locals call a "digital dollar" hedge against lira volatility.

Turkey's equation:
- **α = ~0.6** (high preference due to restricted alternatives)
- **π_expected = 70-80%** (policy-driven inflation)
- **r_alternatives = restricted** (government controls on traditional hedges)
- **Result:** Bitcoin becomes primary accessible hedge for middle class

### Why It Doesn't Work in the USA

The contrast with America is stark. During the 2021-2022 inflation surge, Americans had options. TIPS bonds offered direct inflation protection. Gold ETFs traded with deep liquidity. Real estate remained accessible through REITs. The stock market, despite volatility, stayed open and functional.

The American equation looks completely different:
- **α = ~0.05** (minimal preference, many superior alternatives available)
- **π_expected = 9%** (high by US standards but low globally)
- **r_alternatives = positive** (TIPS, gold, stocks all accessible)
- **Result:** Bitcoin treated as speculation, not hedge

When Americans buy Bitcoin during inflation, they're not hedging—they're speculating on technology adoption. The empirical research confirms this. As Rodriguez and Colombo found, Bitcoin's correlation with inflation in developed markets is essentially zero. It trades like a tech stock because that's how investors with alternatives treat it.

Is it like buying earthquake insurance in Kansas when you could buy flood insurance in New Orleans? Americans don't need Bitcoin's specific protection, so they treat it as a growth investment instead.

### The Banking Crisis Distinction

There's a crucial distinction between inflation crises and banking crises that explains Bitcoin's geographic patterns. Inflation means prices rise but financial systems still function. Banking crises mean financial systems themselves fail.

Bitcoin excels during banking crises, not inflation. When banks freeze deposits (Lebanon), impose capital controls (Greece 2015), or confiscate savings (Cyprus 2013), Bitcoin provides an escape route that gold or real estate cannot. You can't smuggle gold bars across borders easily, but you can memorize twelve words and carry your wealth in your head.

The equation for banking crises differs from inflation:
**Banking Crisis: α → 1 regardless of inflation**
**Inflation Only: α remains low if banks function**

This explains the paradox. Bitcoin failed during US inflation (banks worked fine) but succeeded during Lebanon's banking collapse (inflation was secondary to institutional failure).

### Network Effects Amplify Geographic Differences

The adoption patterns show strong network effects within countries but weak effects across borders. When Bitcoin reaches critical mass in a country—enough users, merchants, and infrastructure—adoption accelerates exponentially. The transaction demand component of our model kicks in:

**D_transaction(t) = β·[N(t)]^γ·T(t)**

In Lebanon or Argentina, N(t) has reached critical mass. Every new user finds existing infrastructure, experienced users, and established use cases. The network effect coefficient γ > 1 creates exponential growth.

In the US, Bitcoin remains largely speculative, so N(t) for actual transaction use stays small. Without critical mass, network effects don't engage. Bitcoin remains an investment, not money.

Is it like trying to use a telephone when nobody else has one versus joining a network where everyone's already connected? That's the difference between Bitcoin in crisis countries versus stable ones.

### The Migration Pattern

A fascinating pattern emerges from the geographic analysis: Bitcoin adoption migrates from failed states toward stable ones, not vice versa. Venezuela led to Colombia. Lebanon influenced Dubai. Argentina affected Uruguay.

The pattern suggests Bitcoin doesn't replace functioning monetary systems—it fills voids where monetary systems have already failed. It's monetary scar tissue, growing where traditional finance has been wounded.

This has profound implications for Bitcoin's future. If adoption requires institutional failure, then Bitcoin's success inversely correlates with economic stability. The better traditional finance works, the less Bitcoin is needed. The worse it fails, the more Bitcoin thrives.

That's not the digital gold narrative. That's something different—a financial immune system that activates during monetary disease. Bitcoin might not be a hedge against inflation, but rather a hedge against institutional collapse.

### The Uncomfortable Implication

The geographic evidence forces an uncomfortable conclusion: Bitcoin works best where you'd least want to live. It thrives on institutional failure, banking crises, and monetary chaos. In stable, prosperous countries with functioning financial systems, Bitcoin remains a speculative curiosity.

This creates a paradox for investors in developed markets. If Bitcoin only demonstrates value during crises you hope never to experience, what role should it play in portfolios? Are you buying insurance against civilizational collapse, or speculating on technology adoption?

The answer might be both—or neither. The next section explores what we're really measuring when we talk about inflation and debasement, and why Balaji argues we've been looking at the wrong metrics all along.

[TO BE CONTINUED... WITH PART 2]