[...]global acceptance is also a factor.
Good point, it is a factor - if we have extreme regional disparities in Bitcoin acceptance the "gold flippening" won't happen. But I think with the exception of China and some few other countries the acceptance of
BTC is already "leveling", i.e. becoming more popular on all continents, and this could already be enough.
I personally believe that BTC has long been positioned as the leading cryptocurrency, and that the first follower is where it is only for two reasons - the first reason is that it has about x6 more coins in circulation, and the second is that it does not actually have a max supply. Let's say that there is a third reason, and that is the transition from PoW to PoS, [...]
I slightly disagree here: if the growth formula was restrictive enough (like the "tail emission" on Monero for example) not having a max supply should not really impact on the potential to be a good store of value, because taking into account lost coins this inflation in the long run will probably be negligible. Bitcoin's publicly known max supply however can be a strong psychological factor.
The difference between the "production" of gold and BTC is incomparable for the reason that estimates of the amount of gold are only speculations
At least the rate in the OP was calculated taking into account the gold that already was extracted. There may be differences in estimations regarding the gold "sunk" in jewellry and industrial applications for example, but I think at least this value should not be that far from reality.
However in my opinion you're right about the second point:
Bitcoin is the opposite of that, it is about numbers and protocols that are more than clearly defined
Exactly that's imo a strong pro-Bitcoin factor, which can play in favour of
BTC once investors are considering it as a real alternative.
My opinion is that this is the biggest challenge of all, because it is hard to expect BTC volatility to disappear, because those who trade with BTC count on it to make a profit. Gold will very likely continue to be a safe choice for investors, while BTC will be something that many investors will see only as something in which they can seek a quick profit for some time to come.
Good point. Like you correctly point out the high volatility depends highly on the predominant speculative investment strategy, often leveraged, which exaggerates price swings even more due to liquidations.
Volatility reduction strategies should be discussed much more. It's difficult to imagine them but I've thought about this topic for years and the following options could be promising:
- Increased liquidity through more "use as a currency",
- more option trading, including decentralized options like outlined
here by @aliashraf, with high liquidity of these products making them more usable for average retail investors to hedge against crashes,
- other financial derivatives like discreet log contracts and DLCFDs, with the same goal,
- merchants (above all service and digital goods providers) operating as "Bitcoin backers" via
specific "special offer/promotion" strategies- development of software suites to live "bankless", using
BTC as a saving strategy
- promoting hodling and DCAing, but not "hoard and sell" behaviour
- development of financial products based on long Bitcoin moving averages. Imagine you could invest in the Bitcoin SMA-500 or so, risk would be minimized.
I believe that the attitude of the world's most powerful governments towards BTC will also play a significant role in a possible flippening - because only private investors and small buyers will hardly turn things around if there is no political support.
I agree regarding "political support", at least governments recognizing that
BTC is a legitimate asset without trying to damage its markets is important. And small Bitcoin reserves (in the order of magnitude of thousands, not millions of
BTC) could also be helpful. My more "skeptical" remark was directed to those who think that Bitcoin must be held massively as reserve by central banks, because like you, I suspect there could be a more "interventionist" attitudes by governments in this case.