Bitcoin’s Biggest Problem Is Not What You Think

I still prefer global diversification over digital scarcity.

I used to find Bitcoin easier to dismiss.

Not because I thought everyone who bought it was stupid. That was never the point. Bitcoin is clearly one of the most interesting financial inventions of the last few decades. It has survived longer than many expected, attracted serious investors, forced regulators to respond, and created a global community of people who think very hard about money, inflation, censorship, and state power.

But for a long time, my personal view was simple: interesting technology does not automatically make a good investment.

Then something happened that made me reconsider whether I had underestimated Bitcoin too much.

The moment was not another price rally. It was not a halving. It was not another influencer explaining why fiat money is doomed.

It was the moment the United States, under Trump, formally created a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve.

For years, one of the strongest arguments against Bitcoin was political risk. Governments could regulate it into irrelevance, make institutional access difficult, or keep it outside the respectable financial system. Once the U.S. government officially treated Bitcoin as a reserve asset, even in a limited and partly symbolic way, that risk looked weaker than before.

That was the point where I had to admit: maybe I had underestimated Bitcoin’s staying power.

But here is the part that still matters for me as an investor.

Taking Bitcoin more seriously is not the same as wanting it in my long-term portfolio.

Bitcoin became harder to dismiss

The U.S. reserve decision does not prove that Bitcoin is a good investment. But it does prove that Bitcoin is no longer just an outsider project living at the edge of finance.

That matters because markets do not only price cash flows. They also price legitimacy, access, adoption, regulation, and belief.

For Bitcoin, legitimacy has always been part of the story. If governments ban it, banks avoid it, exchanges disappear, and institutions cannot touch it, then Bitcoin’s future becomes much harder. But if governments tolerate it, ETFs make it easy to buy, large asset managers discuss it, and even states hold it, the investment case becomes harder to laugh off.

This is where I think some skeptics make a mistake. They still argue as if Bitcoin were a strange internet token that serious institutions will inevitably reject. That is no longer an accurate description of the world.

Bitcoin has moved into the financial mainstream.

But mainstream does not mean safe. And it does not mean attractive.

A casino can be legal and mainstream. That does not make every bet inside it a good investment.

What changed, and what did not

The important thing the U.S. reserve decision changed was not Bitcoin’s intrinsic value. It changed the political context around Bitcoin.

Before, one could argue that the state would always remain Bitcoin’s natural enemy. After the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, that argument became weaker. At least parts of the state now seem willing to treat Bitcoin as an asset worth holding, not just a threat to contain.

That is a real update.

But it does not solve the core investment problem.

Bitcoin still does not produce earnings. It does not pay dividends. It does not generate rent. It does not represent a claim on thousands of companies producing goods and services. Its future return depends mostly on whether future buyers will value it more highly than today’s buyers.

That does not make it worthless. Gold has similar problems. Art has no cash flow either. Collectibles can be valuable for decades or centuries. Human beings clearly assign value to things that are scarce, symbolic, beautiful, useful, or hard to seize.

But as an investor, I need more than the statement that something can have value.

I need a reason to believe today’s price offers an attractive expected return.

That is where Bitcoin still loses me.

The strongest Bitcoin argument is not getting rich quick

The strongest Bitcoin argument is not the one I see most often online.

It is not the chart showing how much money you would have made if you bought years ago.

That argument is emotionally powerful but intellectually weak. Every successful asset looks obvious in hindsight. The question is not whether early buyers made money. The question is what a new buyer should expect from here.

To me, the strongest Bitcoin argument is state-risk diversification.

If you own a house, it is tied to one country. If you own money in a bank account, it is tied to a financial system. If you own assets in a domestic brokerage account, those assets are inside a legal and political structure. In normal times, that structure is helpful. It protects property rights, enforces contracts, and makes markets work.

But in extreme situations, that same structure can become a risk.

Capital controls, bank freezes, wealth taxes, expropriation, financial repression, political instability, and emergency rules are not imaginary. They have happened in different forms across history and across countries.

From that perspective, Bitcoin has a serious argument. A self-custodied digital bearer asset is portable in a way real estate is not. It is easier to move than gold. It can cross borders without a bank transfer. It may help in scenarios where normal financial rails are blocked or monitored.

This is the part of Bitcoin I find most intellectually interesting.

Not the Lamborghini culture. Not the “number go up” memes. Not the idea that every critic simply does not understand money.

The serious argument is that Bitcoin may be a form of insurance against certain political and financial tail risks.

That is not nothing.

But it is also not the same as a strong core investment case.

Asset protection is not the same as wealth building

This distinction is important.

If your goal is asset protection, Bitcoin may have a role. Not a risk-free role. But a possible role.

If your fear is that your government could freeze bank accounts, restrict transfers, devalue currency, or make it harder to move wealth, then holding some wealth outside the traditional banking system can be rational.

But if your goal is long-term wealth building, the question changes.

Now you are asking: where do expected returns come from?

With global equities, the answer is imperfect but understandable. You own tiny pieces of thousands of companies. Those companies sell products, provide services, employ people, invest capital, earn profits, and compete across the world. Some fail. Some thrive. The whole system is messy, risky, and uncertain, but there is a productive engine behind it.

With Bitcoin, the story is different.

There is no productive engine in the same sense. The return mainly comes from future demand meeting fixed supply. That can work. It has worked spectacularly in the past. But it is much harder to estimate.

Bitcoin may protect against some risks. But protection value is not the same as long-term expected return.

A fire extinguisher is useful. That does not mean I want most of my wealth in fire extinguishers.

Scarcity is not enough

The most common Bitcoin argument is simple:

Bitcoin is scarce. Fiat money can be printed. Therefore Bitcoin should rise.

I understand the appeal. It is clean, intuitive, and easy to explain.

But scarcity alone is not enough.

Many things are scarce. That does not make them good investments. A rare object only matters financially if future buyers continue to care about it. Scarcity can support value, but it does not guarantee a good return from today’s price.

The missing piece is durable future demand.

Bitcoin has fixed supply. That is clear. But demand is the hard part. Demand depends on adoption, regulation, trust, culture, liquidity, financial infrastructure, macro conditions, and competition from other assets.

A scarce asset can still disappoint if expectations were too high.

This is why I struggle with Bitcoin as a serious long-term investment. Not because I deny the scarcity. I do not. The scarcity is real by design.

The problem is that the investment case needs more than scarcity. It needs a convincing reason why future demand will grow enough to reward today’s buyer.

That is much harder to prove.

Adoption may be capped by the state

This is where my skepticism becomes stronger.

Bitcoin believers often speak as if adoption has a natural endpoint: more people understand it, more institutions buy it, more countries hold it, and eventually Bitcoin becomes a major part of the global monetary system.

Maybe.

But I think there is a ceiling that many people underestimate.

States and central banks are not neutral observers in this story. Money is one of the deepest sources of state power. Governments tax in their own currencies, borrow in their own currencies, regulate banks, enforce capital controls, monitor financial flows, and respond to crises through monetary policy.

It seems unlikely to me that powerful states will willingly allow a fully independent monetary system to replace their own control.

They may tolerate Bitcoin as an asset.

They may allow ETFs.

They may even hold it as a reserve asset.

But that is very different from allowing Bitcoin to become a dominant parallel money system.

This distinction matters for the upside case. If Bitcoin’s future is mostly “digital gold,” the market may be large. If Bitcoin’s future is “global money,” the market could be much larger. But the second scenario runs directly into state power.

And states usually do not give up monetary power without resistance.

That is one reason I find the bullish adoption story less open-ended than Bitcoin fans often suggest.

El Salvador was a warning sign

El Salvador is useful because it tested Bitcoin in a way that online debates cannot.

The country gave Bitcoin legal tender status, promoted a government wallet, offered incentives, and tried to push adoption into everyday payments.

But the evidence so far has been underwhelming. Studies and IMF analysis found that many people did not continue using Bitcoin for regular transactions after initial incentives. Business acceptance and everyday use remained limited.

This does not prove Bitcoin failed forever. But it does weaken the strongest payment-adoption story.

If Bitcoin struggled to become normal money in a country that actively pushed it, why should I assume it will become everyday money globally?

Again, Bitcoin may still succeed as an asset.

But the payment revolution looks much less convincing to me.

Bitcoin is not really private money anymore

Another thing I find interesting is how little privacy now seems to matter in the mainstream Bitcoin story.

Bitcoin is often described as censorship-resistant money. But Bitcoin is not anonymous. It is pseudonymous. The blockchain is public, and transaction histories can be analyzed. Once an address is linked to a person through an exchange, payment, leak, or investigation, the privacy story becomes much weaker.

In practice, the strongest privacy-focused cryptocurrencies were coins like Monero. But Monero has faced heavy regulatory pressure and has been removed from several major exchanges.

That tells us something important.

The more a cryptocurrency emphasizes privacy, the more aggressively regulated it becomes. The more it wants mainstream access, the more it has to live with surveillance, compliance, and regulated entry points.

Bitcoin seems to have chosen, or at least drifted toward, the second path.

That may be good for price and institutional adoption. But it also changes the story.

If Bitcoin is not private money, and if states will not let it fully replace sovereign money, what exactly is it?

The answer, I think, is narrower than many believers want to admit.

Bitcoin is a scarce, portable, non-sovereign asset with a powerful brand and strong network effects. It may be useful as a tail-risk hedge. It may benefit from distrust in governments and currencies. It may remain attractive to people who want some wealth outside the banking system.

That is a real value proposition.

But it is not the same as a diversified, productive, evidence-based investment portfolio.

The expected return problem remains

This is still Bitcoin’s biggest problem for me.

Not volatility.

Not regulation.

Not energy use.

Not even the fact that it has no cash flows by itself.

The deeper problem is that I cannot estimate the expected return with enough confidence.

With stocks, I also do not know the future. Global equities can disappoint for long periods. Valuations matter. Crashes happen. Countries can stagnate. Diversification helps, but it does not remove risk.

Still, I can understand the basic source of return. Companies try to earn profits. Investors demand compensation for bearing risk. Over long periods, broad ownership of productive businesses has a historical and economic foundation.

Bitcoin’s expected return is harder to anchor.

Maybe future demand grows massively.

Maybe institutions keep allocating.

Maybe countries continue to add reserves.

Maybe young investors increasingly treat Bitcoin as digital gold.

But maybe adoption slows. Maybe regulation limits the most interesting use cases. Maybe Bitcoin becomes mainstream enough to survive, but not revolutionary enough to justify today’s hopes. Maybe future buyers already expect too much.

That range of outcomes is wide.

And for my own money, I do not feel compensated enough to make it central.

Diversification does not mean owning everything

Bitcoin fans sometimes say: even if you are skeptical, why not own a little?

That is a fair question.

A small allocation to Bitcoin could improve some portfolios if Bitcoin performs well and does not move exactly like stocks and bonds. That is the basic diversification argument.

But diversification does not mean buying everything that behaves differently.

A lottery ticket also behaves differently from stocks. That does not make it a good investment.

For an asset to earn a place in my portfolio, I want more than low correlation. I want a reasonable explanation of expected return, acceptable implementation risks, and a role that fits my goals.

Bitcoin may pass that test for some people.

It does not pass it for me as a core holding.

If someone wants Bitcoin as a small satellite position, I can understand that much more than I used to. Especially if they are explicit about why they own it: political risk, currency distrust, optionality, or simply a small speculative bet.

But I think the word “small” is doing a lot of work here.

Once Bitcoin becomes the emotional center of someone’s financial identity, the risk changes. It is no longer just an allocation. It becomes a belief system.

That is exactly what I try to avoid in investing.

Why I still prefer owning the world

This is why I keep coming back to global diversification.

A global ETF is boring. It does not promise freedom from the state. It does not offer a revolutionary monetary story. It will not make you feel early, contrarian, or part of a movement.

But boring can be a strength.

With a globally diversified equity portfolio, I do not need to predict which country wins. I do not need to pick the next dominant technology. I do not need to decide whether Bitcoin becomes digital gold, global money, a reserve asset, a speculative collectible, or something else entirely.

I can own thousands of companies across countries, currencies, sectors, and business models.

That does not make me safe. But it makes my bet broader.

Bitcoin concentrates the bet on one asset, one network, one monetary narrative, and one future path of adoption.

Global diversification spreads the bet across human productivity.

That difference matters to me.

Digital scarcity is elegant. Global diversification is messier. But for long-term wealth building, I still trust the messy productive world more than one scarce digital asset.

So what is Bitcoin to me now?

I no longer see Bitcoin as something easy to dismiss.

The U.S. reserve decision made that clear. Whether symbolic or not, it showed that Bitcoin has crossed a political threshold that skeptics should not ignore.

I also think the state-risk argument deserves respect. If someone wants part of their wealth outside the banking system, outside domestic property, and outside easily frozen accounts, Bitcoin is not a crazy thing to consider.

But I would still categorize it carefully.

Bitcoin is not my retirement plan.

It is not my core wealth-building engine.

It is not a replacement for a globally diversified portfolio.

At most, I see it as a risky satellite asset, a political hedge, or a speculative bet on continued adoption and belief.

That may be enough for some investors. It is not enough for me.

Final thought

Bitcoin may be brilliant.

It may become more important than I expect. It may continue to embarrass skeptics. It may attract more institutions, more governments, and more serious investors.

I accept that possibility.

But investing is not about owning every asset that might work. It is about choosing the risks you understand, the evidence you trust, and the portfolio you can actually live with.

For me, Bitcoin’s biggest problem is not that it is stupid. It is not.

Its biggest problem is that the investment case still depends too much on future belief, political tolerance, and adoption that states may not fully allow.

That is why I can respect Bitcoin, take it more seriously than before, and still choose not to bet on it.

I still prefer global diversification over digital scarcity.

📩 Join Investor’s Handbook Digest — get the best investing, markets, and wealth-building insights each week.