Bitcoin ban inevitable? Thoughts on the Bitcoin versus Gold debate

Even among fans of hard money, people argue about their favorite store of value. Gold or bitcoin? What will best keep your prosperity going in the future? Michael Saylor and Frank Guistra fought out this question on a representative basis.

“Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come.” This is perhaps the best way to sum up the debate between Michael Saylor and Frank Giustra. Giustra, co-chairman of the International Crisis Group and CEO of various precious metal mines, naturally represented the gold corner of the debate. Saylor, on the other hand, argues that Bitcoin will oust gold from the top position in the store of value.

I think all gold investors and bitcoin investors agree on the principles of solid money. The only question is which medium is the best to enforce the ideals of solid money.

Michael Saylor

“Money is energy. At the same time, money is a store of value and a technology to transfer this energy over time and space, ”says Saylor in his usual philosophical manner, setting the bar high right at the beginning of the debate. “Bitcoin is the most efficient monetary system that mankind has ever had. BTC is the most disruptive force of the century. Within 12 years, the cryptocurrency has grown to a market capitalization of $ 1 trillion, ”said Saylor. This means that digital gold has reached a 13-digit market capitalization faster than any company in the world – including Apple, Amazon, Google, Facebook.

Bitcoin is the next step in the mobile wave. We have digitized photos, videos, news and the like. Now we are digitizing our store of value,

says Saylor with reference to the dematerialization of physical objects by the digital world. The digitization of a store of value is only the next logical step.

“Bitcoin ban is inevitable”

Frank Giustra’s gold plea can best be summed up with the classic prohibition FUD.

Governments need a monopoly on money creation. They will never allow a decentralized complementary currency like Bitcoin. Believes Michael [Saylor] really that governments will just watch Bitcoin suck in all of gold’s worth?

Giustra further argues that government bonds are a fundamental part of statehood and that Bitcoin should be seen as an attack on this debt-based economic model. It is simply unthinkable that the number 1 cryptocurrency will be successful.

Bitcoiners like Saylor, on the other hand, argue that BTC can do just that – and call BTC “the most disruptive force of the century”. Bitcoin’s decentralized structure makes a ban simply impractical.

There is also hardly an empirical example of a consistently implemented Bitcoin ban. Countries like India and Turkey are taking more restrictive steps. However, BTC cannot be completely prohibited. In Turkey, for example, only crypto payments are prohibited, but possession remains legal.

On the other hand, there have recently been more and more contradicting examples. The deputy head of the Chinese central bank, for example, has described Bitcoin as an “alternative investment”. Miami’s Mayor Francis Suarez has also been considered a bitcoin for some time and is trying to offer a home to the industry in the capital of Florida.

Giustra’s dystopian blueprint for a future in which Bitcoiners are prosecuted seems impractical and, in any case, incompatible with fundamental freedoms in liberal democracies.

Michael Saylor, on the other hand, embodies the coffin nail on the gold store like no other. The debate has shown once again: Bitcoin is a millennium innovation, even if some gold bugs still refuse to admit it.

You can find the entire debate here.