"You can't just take 5kg of gold and bring it to the other person," Sam messaged me again, "but with bitcoin you can transfer value instantly across the globe." I stared at the screen, frustrated. Here we go again - another bitcoin maximalist who doesn't understand how modern gold markets actually work. "Sam," I typed back, "you're describing a problem that was solved decades ago. My bank account already does that. Solana does it thousands of times cheaper. And countries settle trillion-dollar trade imbalances with gold certificates, not bitcoin."
This conversation encapsulates the fundamental misunderstanding plaguing bitcoin advocates: they believe they've solved a problem that doesn't exist while ignoring the real issues that make bitcoin unsuitable as money. They're also ignoring blockchain's actual strength - creating trusted chains in trustless environments for things like real estate transactions or gold allocations, where permanent transparent records matter. But money? That's not where blockchain shines.
How gold actually moves in the modern world
The "lugging gold bars around" strawman ignores how sophisticated precious metals markets have become. Most international gold transfers happen through electronic allocation changes at trusted depositories. Country A exports more to Country B than it imports. At settlement time, this trade imbalance gets resolved through a trusted third-party broker who simply reallocates gold ownership certificates. The physical gold stays in the same vault in London or Switzerland - only the ownership changes hands electronically. Countries can repatriate physical gold if desired, but it's a massive undertaking. When Germany repatriated just 674 tons between 2013-2017, it took 4 years, €7 million in logistics costs, armored vehicles, private aircraft, and military escorts. Each bar had to be individually verified, transported, and re-verified. This proves why electronic allocation is essential - physical movement for regular trade settlement would be implausible.
Major gold depositories like the Bank for International Settlements facilitate these transfers instantly. The London Bullion Market Association clears $30 billion in gold trades daily through electronic systems. Professional vaults in Switzerland, Singapore, and Hong Kong enable 24/7 ownership transfers without moving a single bar. This infrastructure already exists, works efficiently, and doesn't require burning Poland's worth of electricity (as BTC does).
Bitcoin's transferability advantage is an illusion
Sam's argument crumbles further when examining bitcoin's actual limitations. Bitcoin processes a pathetic 7 transactions per second. To put this in perspective, VISA handles 65,000 transactions per second. The entire bitcoin network couldn't process Brussels' morning coffee purchases, let alone global commerce.
During network congestion, bitcoin fees spike to $50-100 per transaction with confirmation times stretching to hours. Meanwhile, Solana processes 65,000 transactions per second for $0.00025 each. Traditional bank wires cost $15-30 regardless of amount and settle same-day. Even SWIFT, often mocked as outdated, handles millions of daily international transfers at a fraction of bitcoin's cost.
The supposed unique value proposition - transferring value without intermediaries - is better solved by numerous alternatives. If the goal is simply moving money efficiently, existing systems and newer cryptocurrencies vastly outperform bitcoin. The transferability argument is marketing, not reality.
The greater fool's gold
Strip away the technological mystique and bitcoin reveals itself as a classic speculative bubble - a game of "who's the bigger sucker." Unlike precious metals with additional industrial applications, bitcoin's value depends entirely on finding someone willing to pay more than you did. This isn't investing; it's gambling on crowd psychology.
Gold maintains value because industries need it. Silver demand explodes with solar panel production - up 64% in 2023 alone. Platinum remains essential for catalytic converters. These metals have price floors based on real-world utility. Bitcoin? Its only "use case" is convincing others it has value - the textbook definition of a Ponzi scheme.
The Austrian economists understood this principle: money must originate from something with pre-existing value. Gold emerged naturally through thousands of years of market selection. Bitcoin emerged from a whitepaper and speculation. When the music stops, gold still makes electronics and jewelry. Bitcoin makes nothing.
Blockchain's real value isn't bitcoin
To be clear, blockchain technology has genuine revolutionary potential - just not as money. Creating trusted chains in trustless environments makes perfect sense for real estate transactions, supply chain tracking, or … yes… gold allocation records. When you need permanent, transparent, tamper-proof records visible to all parties, blockchain excels.
But money requires different properties: stability, scalability, and universal acceptance. Bitcoin fails all three. The very transparency that makes blockchain valuable for property records makes it terrible for everyday transactions (I don’t want others to see what I paid last night!). The immutability that protects ownership records creates security nightmares when someone loses their keys. The decentralization that prevents tampering also prevents the flexibility monetary systems need.
Ironically, blockchain might revolutionize how we track gold ownership - creating transparent, instant, global transfer systems for precious metals. But using blockchain AS money? That's confusing the medium with the message.
Why stability trumps technology
Bitcoin's 50%+ annual volatility destroys its utility as money. You can't price contracts, plan budgets, or preserve wealth with an asset that swings 20% in a day. Gold's relatively stable value over millennia demonstrates what actual monetary assets look like.
The network consumes at the moment ~175 TWh annually - more electricity than entire countries - just to process fewer transactions than a single bank branch. This wasteful design isn't a bug; it's a feature that makes bitcoin fundamentally unscalable. As adoption increases, so does energy waste and transaction costs.
Meanwhile, gold sits quietly in vaults, maintaining value without burning fossil fuels or requiring constant technological maintenance. Its security depends on the fundamental laws of nature - gold cannot be created at whim, only through neutron star collisions or particle accelerators at astronomical cost. It doesn't need software updates, hard forks, or consensus mechanisms.
The trade settlement reality
Here's what Sam doesn't understand: countries and institutions prefer gold precisely because it has intrinsic value. When China settles trade imbalances, they want assets with genuine worth, not speculative tokens. Gold represents actual wealth - bitcoin represents a ledger entry.
Central banks hold 35,000 tons of gold reserves. Their bitcoin holdings? Negligible. When Russia faced sanctions, they relied on gold reserves, not cryptocurrency. When inflation strikes, people flee to precious metals with proven track records, not volatile digital experiments.
The infrastructure for global gold settlement already exists, works efficiently, and doesn't require new technology adoption. Bitcoin solving a "transfer problem" is like inventing a square wheel - unnecessary and inferior to existing solutions.
The bottom line
Sam's transferability argument fundamentally misunderstands both gold markets and bitcoin's limitations. Gold ownership transfers happen instantly through established electronic systems with far greater capacity than bitcoin's congested network. The real question isn't whether you can physically carry gold - it's whether your store of value will survive when speculative mania ends.
Gold has survived every currency collapse, every technological shift, every government that tried to ban it. Bitcoin has survived... a few hype cycles driven by greater fools seeking quick riches.
Bitcoin isn't digital gold - it's digital tulips with a better marketing department.
And Sam? She's still searching for the next sucker to buy her transferable nothing at a higher price than she paid.
I concur