Topic: Bitcoin vs. Gold - is market cap parity utopian? (Spoiler, no!) (Read 898 times)

The investors who have lost interest in gold are mainly retail investors like us. Most of us are no longer interested in gold because it has become stable and no longer gives high returns. While we are the ones who want to get rich with our small capital, that is why we see bitcoin investors in the early years were mostly young people. But as bitcoin becomes more legitimate and bitcoin ETFs are approved, more people will invest in bitcoin, not just young people.

On the other hand, for large investors, gold will always be the top priority in their portfolio because what they care about more is safety and stability.

I also disagree when I say: bitcoin has surpassed gold's dominance, it will come but not now.

In his latest presentation at Cantor, Micheal Saylor stated that Bitcoin could get to 6.22 times the gold capitalisation by 2040.
Pretty aggressive stance to me, not only in terms of Market Cap, but in terms of time horizon.
Hopefully, he's right on this.
I don't want to post it here, as it would be an extreme cross post but it's not difficult to find it!

I do not agree with you that people are losing interest in gold because they learned about the existence of Bitcoin. Conservative investors still hold a very large share of their portfolios in gold and they consider Bitcoin a risky asset for investment, in fact, there are a lot of such investors around the world.

BlackRock began to change their opinion on this well, they repeatedly repeat in their interviews that Bitcoin can be considered a reliable asset, and the BlackRock Bitcoin ETF under the ticker IBIT has outpaced the gold ETF in terms of asset value and it should be taken into account that the price of gold has now been high since 1980. So I think that this should become a very indicative factor for all investors who previously doubted whether it is worth investing in Bitcoin or not. On the other hand, the price of Bitcoin is now too high to buy it, experienced investors understand this well and may well pay attention to Bitcoin, but start buying it in the bear market, when the general euphoria ends and the price starts to fall.

From my point of view for ease of reference, it is more than reasonable for many of us to start to refer to quantities of satoshis, since it is seeming more and more impractical for any normie newbies to be shooting to own a whole BTC, and sure there are some who can fairly easily get to such quantity of BTC, but it seems a bit elitist and even impractical to be considering that the targeting of getting to 1 BTC is actually reasonable and/or practical for an overwhelming majority of normies who might be contemplating getting into bitcoin.

Essentially, they are likely going to need to start to think in terms of practical goals, and even getting to 1 million satoshis may well be difficult for a lot of newbie normies, so they likely are going to need to figure out some realistic quantiles of bitcoin to attempt to target.. perhaps first getting to 100k satoshis and then working up in intervals of 100k satoshis until they get to 1 million satoshis.. and so yeah, just keep working at it.. within their means and within their timeline.. and surely many times if guys are new to bitcoin, it may well take them 4-10 years or longer just to establish a reasonable position in BTC, and I actually know a lot of people who I have recommended getting into bitcoin and investing $100 per week, and for some reason they believe that is too much for their budgets and/or their psychology, and so even last year, I was starting to proclaim that a person who is just starting in bitcoin and ONLY putting $100 per week into bitcoin, they may well never be able to reach a whole bitcoin at that rate of investment. and surely $100 per week is $5,200 per year and $52k after 10 years, and so anyone wanting to reach 1 BTC or more is likely going to need to aspire to investing more than $100 per week into bitcoin, even if they might not be able to invest $100 per week right now, they might be able to increase their investment amount into the future.

At the same time, I doubt it is necessary for anyone to be putting artificial and/or unreachable goals in front of them, so they should be getting into bitcoin, yet trying to figure out some reachable goals, so in the beginning maybe they shoot for 100k satoshis and then push towards 1 million satoshis and if they are learning about bitcoin, then surely they can adjust their goals to be more aggressive in the future, if they come to realize that it might be in their better interest to do so.  People come to bitcoin within their own timeline, and surely a lot of normal peeps are going to end up having to pay way more for their satoshis due to whatever ongoing dynamics we have in which it appears that more and more larger players are starting to bid up whatever supply that's currently available.

We cannot turn back the clock, and we have to figure out what we are going to do in regards to our bitcoin accumulation journey from now into the future, and sure if we already have enough BTC or more than enough BTC, then sure we are not in a bad place, yet I doubt that there are too many folks, even members of this forum, who are really in a position to say that they have enough BTC or more than enough BTC... yet if they have already been accumulating BTC, and they know to accumulate BTC, then they surely are in a better position than the no coiner or the low coiner who does not realize that he doesn't have enough.


Of course, so many folks wrongly conclude that they are too late to bitcoin, and surely if they continue to fail/refuse to act to get bitcoin, they are ONLY going to make their situation worse by continuing to believe such nonsense.  But hey, there is ONLY so much that any of us can do to help normies to help themselves in the departmenet of getting started in their bitcoin accumulating (stacking) journey sooner rather than later.


I am not exactly sure about your description Onyeeze, since it seems to me that the main point is that the longer that bitcoin is in existence, the more and more people are going to recognize it as the more superior asset for holding its value for the various reasons that it is the best of monies, so value is going to continue to gravitate into bitcoin from many and most assets/currencies that have a monetary premium, even if it takes a while (50-200 or more years) to play out... and yeah, we don't have to wait 50-200 years to see the ongoing appreciation of bitcoin's price as value continues to flow into it.  The longer that people wait to get bitcoin, the more it is going to cost them to get it, so some people recognize bitcoin's value sooner than others, and sometimes it is not even because the earlier arrivers are smarter. Sometimes it may just be a matter of being at the right place at the right time and realizing that it is a good idea to get some bitcoin in case it catches on.

calculating when bitcoin was introduced till date you will know that bitcoin price is being getting increased due to the awareness or people the way people have known gold it is the way people have known Bitcoin both of them is a digital currency and the gold exist before Bitcoin but now bitcoin has taken over the market of digital currency because of it awareness and the eight investment method it is because of the investment plan of Bitcoin that makes people to lose interest in gold as a store value and the invest in Bitcoin so that is why when you are saying that Bitcoin does not have a population or bitcoin is just a new digital currency I will not disagree with you but the thing is that bitcoin has dominated over gold and the other digital currencies

The bolded part is about as correct as it could get. This is what I was trying to convey with my OP. The pace at which the network has grown (or the value of it) is so impressive that it's impossible to understand someone arguing it couldn't grow beyond gold. Of course it can... It exactly can because it had this growth and the growth is proof that people all around the globe and institutions and all other actors started rushing in while gold went about 2x in the same time. Bitcoin will grow when the global economy grows, and bitcoin will probably grow when the economy shrinks for certain reasons. This doesn't mean gold won't be stable or has to decline in value as a consequence, but there are so many other asset classes that people are invested in and not very satisfied with nor confident in.

I think that this bull run very well confirms what we have been talking about anyway and bitcoin is at any time set up to go for 25% in a week and it will continue like that. Scarcity will kick in, companies like Microstrategy take bitcoin out of circulation at a large scale, more people will set their goals to achieve holdings of 1 BTC and then if it becomes more expensive they aim for 1 mBTC and so on and so forth, but more and more people understand that not owning bitcoin at all will be an expensive mistake.

As the network grows further now and protects more and more value, the chance that politicians act against it becomes very small. It's a question of lobbies at some point too.

I have read a headline a moment ago "is it too late to get into Bitcoin?". I have read this headline ever since I found out about bitcoin and I thought damn it, I should have documented all those headlines every single time because they keep coming at all price levels.

Enjoy the ride JJG!

You are very correct.
We all know Gold has been in existence for thousands of years and Bitcoin just came in and has just been in existence for about 16 years now and if we check how Bitcoin is growing and making wave we will know that Bitcoin will surely surpass Gold as time goes on in it's market cap.
A lot of people focus more on Bitcoin investment than Gold investment this days because they have seen Bitcoin will be more valuable in time to come some government of nation are even investing on Bitcoin.
A lot of things that will replaced Gold are coming up every day and as time goes on the worth of gold won't be this valuable than as it is now.

Fair enough.  Apparently, the humor (or the actual point that you were making) went over my head.

The comparison between Bitcoin and Gold while only considering the assets’ market capitalization is rather lame if I’m to be honest. This is because there are several other notable factors that are beyond mere market capitalization that we should also put into adequate consideration before making such comparisons, factors such as technological advancement, there are also regulatory environments and most importantly, adoption rates. We can’t conclude on which asset is better/best without first considering these other factors.

It’s true that when we only focus on gold’s market capitalization lead over Bitcoin, we’ll be doing nothing other than to undermine and possible also overlooking the tremendous potential and growth Bitcoin has shown by moving from $4b market capitalization to $1.5tr in less that 10 years which we know shows quite a significant growth.
Bitcoin is still relatively a new technology and there are still enough room for more technological innovations and advancements, I’m pretty sure in a few years, there’ll be no more reason for such a comparison because Bitcoin market cap will surpass Gold.

JJG, buddy, I was being sarcastic calling that post "genius"   It was exactly as you said: the opposite.

(going to answer your post in more detail later)

I have nothing wrong with anything in your post, including that my understanding that there can be many of us bringing out various similar points, and some guys present ideas more clearly and scientific than others, and it can take a long time for ideas to sink in, including it can take a lot of time to grapple with some of the deeper ideas, and people will also learn from different ways of the ideas being presented.

On the other hand, I did not consider your above statement from EarnOnVictor to be particularly genius-worthy, and I in fact found it to be the opposite, especially since he seemed to have had been poo pooing the amount of bitcoin's growth in the past year or so by proclaiming that gold grew by something like $8-9 trillion in one year and bitcoin is merely just touching upon being around a $1.5 trillion asset.   Any guys who find wisdom in that level of dumbness are likely going to have fun staying poor and deservingly so for failing to have any level of smartness if they consider gold's doubling (perhaps over 13 years, even though much of it took place last year) has much if any meaning for gold's ability to be able to hang on to its market cap lead over bitcoin. 

Even if we compare bitcoin from 2015 to now, we would see that bitcoin went from something like a $4 billion market cap to $1.5 trillion, so continuing to poo poo bitcoin merely because it is small relative to gold seems to be completely missing the picture, to the extent that such framings is not being purposefully misleading.

Even if bitcoin does not reach gold's market cap this cycle (which might not even be that low of probabilities), there seem to be pretty decent odds that bitcoin is going to have a market cap that is multiples higher than gold's within a couple of cycles, and the comment about gold growing $8-9 trillion and bitcoin remaining ONLY around $1.5 trillion-ish is going to look quite dumb and quite blind to the current opportunity that bitcoin still presents to a lot of no coiners and low coiners who still have either completely not gotten started accumulating bitcoin or they have purposefully chosen to whimpily invest in bitcoin.

Sure it is possible that gold will double or triple again in the next 1-4 years, and even with bitcoin we cannot really be sure how its cycles are going to play out, yet it seems that the odds would still be pretty great that bitcoin will be toying around with gold's market cap and potentially exceeding it this or the next cycle, and sure it could take a few cycles before bitcoin's bottom price (such as it's 200WMA) is solidly above gold's market cap, yet still even from those price points, bitcoin is likely to be continuing upwardly and getting to price points of multiples and magnitudes higher than gold based on bitcoin's relative greater value that is still being figured out in the market over the coming 10-20 years and probably longer, and during that time still I would be hating to be holding more than 10% gold as compared with what I would be holding in bitcoin, and surely  even 10% is likely way too much, except for those wanting (perhaps purposefully) to have fun staying poor.

JJG let me say this for the last time, I am ALL for those other models not valuing bitcoin against fiat currency. I am all for it and I read it with huge interest and I have been thinking a lot about these things myself. What gbianchi has done here goes far beyond what I could have done within an hour or even less and it is great and insightful what he has created. But my goal was to simply demonstrate the pace at which bitcoin approaches parity with gold's market cap. You could use pretty much any denominator to demonstrate that and to just demonstrate this one single aspect, the USD is the most appropriate denominator I guess.

Bitcoin vs. gold comparisons can be approached on a whole different level as gbianchi has done. But to me it seems that you guys have skipped that I have intended for this thread to be relatively simple. That is why I did the standardization to 21 billion ounces, which contains rounding errors to say the least as the total amount of gold in the world is not exactly know, but approximately and that is why the number worked.

As gbianchi says

This is of course correct and the term you choose hits the nail on the head: "monetary premium superiority of bitcoin". There is nothing we disagree about here.

So let me conclude with one of the geniuses I was trying to demonstrate the bitcoin within just 15 years has cut down the multiplier from over 5 million to low double digits. You could also turn it around and talk in fractions instead of a multiplier.

One of the reasons why people already gravitate so much towards measuring goods, services, commodities, assets or other currencies in terms of gold is because gold tends to be a more reliable denominator - even though gold fluctuates too.

There are other less liquid things that we could use as our denominator, such as hookers, lambos and blow or yachts and private airplanes.

We could also measure in terms of BigMacs or medium home prices or costs of a normal shopping basket.  Some things are more consistent with the passage of time as compared with other things.. oh yeah, and we can choose a basket of equities (or surely various index funds do that too), but yeah, currently, when we measure against currencies, we can see that the dollar is the strongest amongst the current currencies available to choose from, so we would like to measure from the strongest one, yet we should also realize tht the dollar is not a very accurate measuring stick.

So yeah, I was criticizing you for gravitating towards feeling like you have to measure against the dollar or some other fiat when our more direct question, even in the title of your OP specifically says bitcoin versus gold, why is there a need for a third measure that is likely even less accurate than measuring in terms of hookers, lambos and blow... to the extent that the third measure is even needed at all... which I am proclaiming that you feel some kind of need to measure bitcoin against the dollar and then gold against the dollar and you are likely just convoluting and distorting the information by having the dollar in there in the first place.... and as a bonus argument, I am proclaiming there really is no need for any third measurement in there and let's get to the direct question and eliminate the froth and the distortions by measuring bitcoin against gold like your thread title proclaims to be doing in the first place...

start this thread over.. hahahahahahaha


Yeah, let's add that piece of shit to the discussion (if we really want to get distracted?). 

I will admit that I am being a bit overly flippant with you, since sometimes there can be some value in regards to adding in other comparison points, but I think that there is also value to start with the more direct one of measuring bitcoin versus gold, and if there is some value to secondary comparisons, then fine, but the main comparison seems to be valuing bitcoin versus gold and bringing in other assets/currencies that might or might not reflect something that we might be able to measure in the real world might or might not be helpful, yet it still seems less central than the direct measure between bitcoin and gold and how that has changed over time and how that is likely going to continue to change.

By the way, I have had been interviewing a few different guys in the real world to help me with some bitcoin related matters, and each of them devolved into discussions about Ethereum and some of the other shitcoins such as Solana and perhaps we mentioned a few others, which I am not completely opposed to accounting for various things going on in the shitcoin space, yet some of the frustration that I had in going down these paths of discussion is that the guys frequently were so much caught up in dollar pair analysis, and sometimes did not even realize the value of looking at ethereum with a bitcoin pair order to get some kind of a better assessement of what is actually happening in ethereum-landia... especially as compared with bitcoin.  So sometimes it can take a bit of time to get normies to wrap their heads around the value of skipping dollar as a pairing in order to get towards both a more profound analysis but also to consider ethereum versus bitcoin from another perspective rather than considering each of them in terms of dollars.

We even have that same problem with guys who seem to be completely focused on bitcoin (or bitcoin and the dollar), and so they might be trading or whatever, yet when they are measuring what they are doing in terms of the dollar, they tend to get mislead, especially the longer that we zoom out and surely maybe we are all thinking about dollar profits, but for sure, the ongoing debasement of the dollar can be difficult to account for and we might not really be able to appreciate bitcoin's superior long term performance when we are getting caught up in short term valuations that fail/refuse to capture that bitcoin is eating everyone's lunch, and likely going to continue to do so, even though sometimes on the short-term it can be difficult to identify exactly how much.


I don't see any major problem in regards to taking the market cap of each of them, and yeah we already know that if we are describing the market cap of each of them, then it already incorporates the dollar as the referenced denominator.. .. so tend to become oriented towards them in terms of even realizing that they are both going up, in part, because the unit of measurement is changing (debasing), yet at the same time, we likely realize that bitcoin is going up faster than gold in part due to its early adoption phases, so bitcoin is still in very early stages of price discovery.. which is what happens when people actually realize that bitcoin is way better than gold (perhaps in the ballpark of 1,000x or more better), and bitcoin is created (invented/discovered) in such a way that there is a realization that anyone is capable of holding it, yet ONLY around less than 1% of the world's population have ownership of it (whether directly holding it or having price exposure), and at the same time the ones who are likely hoarding and/or engaged in maniacal accumulation of bitcoin are a small segment of the population, yet they are trying to gobble up all of the bitcoin based on their speculation that everyone else is going to want this bitcoin too, once they figure out what it is.


No time soon are you going to catch me telling folks to either stop measuring in fiat values and/or keeping all of their assets in bitcoin (and not keeping any cash), even though surely there are some folks who have figured out ways for them to keep almost all of their value in bitcoin and then just cash out fiat as needed to pay for their fiat bills.  I don't recommend anything like that, yet hey people figure out their own ways of balancing bitcoin volatility as compared with fiat, which surely works out quite well during times like this when bitcoin is quite volatile to the upside, yet we likely realize that the overwhelming majority of time (even in bull markets) bitcoin tends to have a lot of volatility to the downside, so its upward volatility tends to be fewer number of days per year but still the kinds of days that anyone holding bitcoin is quite rewarded for being in bitcoin on those days rather than not being, and guys fucking around with their bitcoin allocation will sometimes not be enough in bitcoin during those few days of the year where bitcoin is irreversibly volatile to the upside and each of us would have hade been better to be "in" rather than "out" of bitcoin on those days.


In the end, you do whatever makes sense to you, yet I would consider that there could be some value to pick some unit of value of gold (there are charts that already do this), whether an once or a kilo or a ton or some other unit and compare it to bitcoin.  Of course, bitcoin is continuously going up in value regarding how many units of bitcoin it takes to buy whatever units of gold that you select... So to me, that seems to be the most direct way of measuring, even though yeah, the bitcoin and/or the gold is moving up or down in value relative to each other while still being able to be pegged to how many hookers, lambos and/or blow they can purchase (or whatever other outside comparative reference you would like to look at). 


Along with my earlier comment, I also think that being too narrowly focused on gold is going to contribute to a lot of under-appreciation of the monetary premium superiority of bitcoin, since monetary value is held in a lot of assets besides gold, and gold has been largely demonetized over the past 50-ish years - even though surely it has had its price runs within that time too.

The kinds of ideas presented by Jesse Myers in regards to how bitcoin is continuing to suck up monetary premium from a variety of assets besides just gold.

I think everyone should look at this thread, as we put a lot of effort into describing the final scenarios that might arise from a hyperbitcoinisation in which Bitcoin subtracts some value from Gold.
Also, there are a few trajectories to get to those scenarios, many of which involve multiple decades-long journeys.

take a look at this

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/a-logistic-model-of-bitcoins-price-5517489

I describe a gold-based pricing model

Since I was talking about market cap parity and you could take the Zimbabe dollar as well. It doesn't matter what you take, but you would need a  denominator and since purchasing power is still measured in some form of FIAT currency, there is no way around calculating parity scenarios as of today.

The ethereum part was provided because I remember the talk back at the time how the ethereum community was trying to push an agenda with a lot of marketing money and tricks, but the agenda fell apart ultimately. The same way there are some guys claiming that bitcoin can't reach market cap parity with gold. You could take a basket of goods, but it will have to be based on something and for now people will use a major fiat currency or the currency of their home country to see what bitcoin is worth to them. Whether someone likes that or not, but whatever is your daily fiat currency, you won't get around using fiat to buy bitcoin unless you are providing services valuing them in bitcoin, but even then your counterpart is doing any comparison in the national fiat currency in 99.99% of the cases.

The USD in the table served aas the denominator for standardization to then see what fraction 1 mBTC used to be of an ounce of gold and what fraction it used to be over the years and then more or less as of today. I can't numerically grasp the philosophical idea of bitcoin carrying value outside the USD system entirely. I wanted to provide a quick overview of how fast the bitcoin network value developed compared to gold's USD-based market cap. That's what you can do quickly. I share your idea/concepts, but this isn't something you can put quickly into an excel table.

You are overly whimpy.  Snap out of it.   


 

By the way, I personally am not proclaiming that BTC prices have to go up or that gold prices have to come down in order to get the repricing in the 1,000x-ish arena.. and sure at the same time, since I am suggesting that it could take 50 to 200 years or longer for the pricing to work itself out, there is almost no way that I would end up seeing this in my lifetime, unless for some reason my shorter-timeframe ends up being too long.

So, yeah, since as I type this post, bitcoin is about 1/15th the price (market cap) of gold, then just on the face of reach what I would consider fair market valuations of gold relative to bitcoin, we are going to need to see bitcoin come up around 30,000x compared with gold in terms of today's market prices and/or gold come down 30,000x, which would be 1/30,000 (-99.996667%), relative to bitcoin... so gold would retain 0.00003333% of its current value, relative to bitcoin.

Sure, I accept that I might be off by a bit.


Call me a lazy butt.

I cannot read through all of that, and part of the reason is that I find that there is a bit of a faulty framework to get too caught up in considering the extent to which gold is currently monetized, and sure it is possible that if we looked back at gold historically - prior to the various ways that it has been demonetized, then perhaps we might be able to come to some fair value considerations of gold as compared to other monetary mechanisms, yet in the past 100 years or so, monetization has spread into a lot of assets, a lot of products, properties and derivatives of other products, so if we are going to attempt to valuate bitcoin's monetary properties as compared with other monetary vehicles, then we have to look at the so many ways that so many other assets and currencies have been modified, and consider that bitcoin is a much more efficient way to store money as compared with the so many ways that money is currently being stored, and sure perhaps bitcoin does not absorb all of world's monetary premium, I still think that bitcoin is going to continue to absorb a lot of the monetary premium of a lot of the places where monetization is currently taking place, and also more value is going to be created in the world while these dynamics are playing out in the next 50-200 years.

So perhaps right now the monetary premium of world assets, properties and currencies amounts to somewhere in the ballpark of $1 Quadrillion, and so currently bitcoin is about $1.5 trillion of that which is about 0.15%, and gold is about $17 trillion of that, which is about 1.7%.  Bitcoin could probably end up absorbing all of that $1 quadrillion, and yeah have the assumption that the pie is going to continue to grow (and I am not even referring to the debasement of the dollar) but instead in real terms and the likelihood of new inventions (and new value creation) that comes with improvements in technology.. just like value increased with the discovery/invention of electricity, improved transportation, the internet, etc.


Personally, I doubt that it is necessary for us to see the high prices that we project within our lifetimes, even though sure there is more practicality in terms of projecting shorter timelines.

One importance is that if we can see the trajectory, then we likely can also see directionally where we are likely going, if there are likely going to be bumps in the road along the way, and surely there also is importance to understand and appreciate that we are still likely to be quite prosperous in the shorter timelines, like 10 to 30 years, even though bitcoin will still be in route to higher trajectories, and we are likely better to be in bitcoin rather than not being in bitcoin.. and it still is going to take a lot of normies a decently long time to jump on board.


Maybe I am getting a bit confused, since shouldn't the more direct comparisons be bitcoin to gold? or gold to bitcoin?  Why do we need to have the dollar in there, or even in your OP, who gives any shits about how the largely irrelevant manipulated Ethereum might fit in there?


If we are talking about comparative valuations, I see no reason to get locked up into "our lifetimes" since we are not even going to be able to really figure out how long valuations could end up playing out, and whether gradually and then suddenly actually works.. or is it gradually and then continued gradually, yet we should realize that there is no such thing as completely gradually in the way that markets and battles (and wars) end up working.  We likely have the greatest wealth transfer known to mankind, so there is likely no way that such wealth transfer takes place without some collateral damage along the way.   You (we) can deny that wealth transfer is actually taking place to your (our) own peril.  People are not going to agree about wealth being transferred from them.. so yeah, the transfer is going to from the no coiners to the coiners, and the sooner that any of us becomes a coiner, then the more likely we are going to be on the receiving end of such wealth transfer rather than being on the giving end.

It needs some abstraction, which without knowing you, I believe you are able to do? (Not intending to draw away from the main topic).

Yep, basically this^^

The better money wins out and there is no doubt about that. Bitcoin opens up new options that gold could not have, compared to Bitcoin. But then again, comparing gold to Bitcoin only makes sense in a currency perspective. Outside of that, gold is used/needed for many things that Bitcoin cannot do, due to its non-physical nature. Comparing market caps based on that is a bit like comparing apples to oranges.

So measuring both in terms of market cap is not really going to work.

Great to see some more members chiming in here. I didn't want to get the same topic started for the 100th time here. That is why I decided to standardize an ounce of gold to mBTC and that worked out quite ok approximately (give or take). I think the table I created demonstrates the tremendous pace at which bitcoin did catch up with potential parity to gold.



I have provided the explanations in OP, but so far we went from mBTC being 5.6 million x of an ounce of gold to low double digit x. That's blowing my mind and this is more than just some speculative bubble. But please keep in mind I have worked with estimates and that is why I used the dividor 1/3. About 7 billion ounces of gold vs. 21 billion mBTC.

But @fillippone, a multiple can be 0.1x as much as it can be 1,000x as JJG said 1,000x would only be possible if value is shifted from gold to bitcoin or if we talk about hundreds of years and global net worth continues to expand. But let's focus on our modest lifetimes. I would say that the 5x sounds quite reasonable. Could be more, but we probably won't achieve 1,000x unless gold takes a nose dive.

Always happy about comments!