Mr. Xiaolong's Today's Perspective ——Will Bitcoin be more important than gold in the future? Today, CZ made a very bold judgment: 'BTC may surpass gold in the future, and even the next bull market may occur.'. ” I think it's not impossible, but it's far from that simple. BTC is gaining increasing institutional recognition and the global financial infrastructure is constantly improving; But it took thousands of years for gold to establish today's global consensus on wealth. A more realistic problem is: Can regulation truly be opened up? Can the institution sustain its configuration? Can global liquidity be further expanded? Can ordinary people form a long-term stored value consensus? Especially since China currently does not support Bitcoin, it also means that BTC still has to face a very complex regulatory and geopolitical environment in order to become a true global consensus on wealth. Is it possible for BTC to be more important than gold in the future? It is possible, but the difficulty is very high, and "more important than gold" and "market value exceeding gold" are actually two different things. First of all, Chinese Mainland is still strictly restricting virtual currency related businesses. The People's Bank of China has publicly responded that virtual currency related business activities are illegal financial activities and cannot be traded domestically. So, CZ's proposal that 'BTC may be more important than gold in the future', if discussed globally, I believe it cannot be simply denied by whether China supports BTC, nor can the variable of China be ignored. The real core is that the advantage of gold is too deep! The biggest moat of gold is not technology, but the global consensus of thousands of years. Central bank reserves, national credit system, financial institution allocation, jewelry demand, safe haven asset attributes... These things cannot be completely replaced by BTC after more than a decade of development. The advantages of BTC are exactly the opposite: Globalization, digitization, supply ceiling, 24-hour trading, cross-border transferability, and an increasing number of institutions are incorporating it into asset allocation. So the two actually represent two completely different wealth consensuses: Gold: A consensus formed by humanity over thousands of years. BTC: A new consensus is emerging in the Internet era. The most important thing is that if BTC wants to become a truly global stored value asset, it does not need the support of every country. The Internet, the US dollar and gold itself also have policy differences between different countries. What truly determines the historical status of BTC is this: The degree of institutionalization in major financial markets such as the United States, global institutional allocation, liquidity, adoption by ordinary users, regulatory acceptance, and cross-border payment demand. In particular, the strict restrictions on virtual currency business in Chinese Mainland do not mean that the entire Chinese capital market completely excludes digital assets. Hong Kong has established its own regulatory and licensing system for virtual assets, which is also a very important variable. The relevant report from the People's Bank of China also mentioned that Hong Kong is exploring a regulatory framework for virtual assets. As for whether BTC can truly surpass gold in the end? Market value can be entrusted to the market, while importance can be entrusted to time. If one day BTC really surpasses gold, it may mean that what is being changed is not the ranking of an asset, That will be a generational shift in global wealth consensus. Do you think Bitcoin will be more important than gold in the future?