🟠 Lyn Alden publicly leaning “BTC beats gold over the next 2–3 years” is basically a macro call that WE’RE NOT DONE with monetary debasement yet. This isn’t about Bitcoin “tech” suddenly improving. It’s about the market slowly re-pricing what the best non-sovereign money is when: - fiscal deficits stay structurally ugly - real yields are a moving target (and can flip fast) - capital controls / sanctions / fragmentation keep creeping into the system - institutions prefer something liquid, transferable, and credibly scarce Gold is the old hedge. Bitcoin is the hedge that comes with convexity. If the next regime is “slow growth + persistent fiscal dominance,” gold can grind higher… but BTC can overshoot because it trades like a monetary call option that’s becoming more institutionally acceptable each cycle. The part people miss: gold is already widely owned as a hedge. Bitcoin is still UNDER-OWNED relative to what it represents, so marginal flows matter more. I’m positioned like I believe that. I’m staying long BTC as my primary “hard money with upside” exposure, and I’m treating pullbacks as inventory-building, not as thesis-breakers. I still keep some gold exposure because when liquidity snaps, gold usually draws less blood than BTC… but my bias is clear: if we get even a mildly easier liquidity impulse, BTC should outrun. I’m watching one thing like a hawk: does BTC start trading less like a high-beta Nasdaq proxy and more like an independent monetary asset—because if that decoupling shows up, the next leg can be violent. I’ve got a pretty specific trigger list for when I’d rotate more aggressively between BTC and gold, and most people are looking at the wrong dashboard. If you’re hedging the next 24 months, are you buying STABILITY (gold) or CONVEXITY (BTC)—and what would actually make you change your mind?