In 2025, a confrontation over value storage is unfolding. On one side is Bitcoin's digital scarcity, and on the other is the tangible security of tokenized gold promises. Both tracks have their supporters, and choosing the right direction can indeed save a lot of detours.

First, let's look at the logic of tokenized gold. Physical gold is anchored 1:1 to on-chain assets, with liquidity and stability far surpassing traditional gold bars. Free division, instant settlement—completely breaking the geographical and logistical constraints on gold circulation. It sounds perfect, but there are pitfalls—counterparty risk always exists, and centralized custody means your assets are still essentially in someone else's control. This is hard to bypass.

Now, look at Bitcoin. The absolute scarcity of 21 million coins is a hard constraint, with no intermediaries, truly achieving decentralization. Global, instant transfers, with institutional investors' holdings reaching new highs. But its high volatility is also a reality—that's enough to deter risk-averse investors.

This topic has been discussed many times. The debate between CZ and Peter Schiff once sparked heated discussion—one side insists that digital scarcity guarantees value through code, while the other trusts physical assets as the underlying anchor. Both philosophies are convincing, but ultimately point to different risk preferences and trust assumptions.

Ultimately, the choice comes down to asking yourself: do you value the explosive potential of digital assets more, or the stability of traditional precious metals after digitization? This judgment determines your subsequent asset allocation direction.