2025-12-08 05:21:06

There’s an interesting phenomenon. Everyone complains that Bitcoin is expensive, but looking at a ten-year timeframe, its compound annual growth rate still crushes a bunch of traditional assets.

Among mainstream assets, BTC ranks first in ten-year compound growth.

Here’s a more intuitive way to look at it: In early December 2015, a single BTC was only a few hundred dollars. Now? It's at the $90,000 level. It’s increased more than 200 times over ten years.

Yet as 2025 is coming to a close, physical gold and silver have actually outperformed "digital gold," and even the A-shares haven’t lost to it.

How did BTC underperform the broader market?

**First, when macro risks tighten, BTC is always the first to be sold off as a high-volatility asset.** A Reuters report in early December also mentioned that BTC is highly correlated with stock market sentiment, and there was a noticeable pullback in November.

**Second, there hasn’t been continuous capital inflow.** In November, spot Bitcoin funds saw significant net outflows. The total crypto market cap fell from its highs, and naturally the market entered a deleveraging and risk-off mode.

**Third, leverage-driven narratives are harder to withstand volatility.** For example, some publicly traded companies heavily invested in BTC face the dual pressure of both BTC price fluctuations and discounts in financing and valuations, making them vulnerable to a double whammy when the market cools.

**Fourth, after three cycles in the crypto space, old money, new elites, and the “coin second generation” have all entered the game.** These smart players, along with institutions and whales, continue to siphon off liquidity from both primary and secondary markets—most of the money is being made by the top players.

But in the long run, BTC is still most likely to trend upward. After all, BTC’s upside is unlimited, while fiat currency has no bottom.

It’s just that it’s hard to see the same widespread wealth creation effects as in 2017 or 2021.

BTC0,52%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

10 Likes

Reward
10
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

UnluckyValidator

· 2025-12-11 02:09

Still think 200x is expensive? That logic is truly unmatched. Is it so bold to cut leeks now? With liquidity dried up, retail investors have to take the hit. Smart money entering means it's time for us to run. BTC is long-term upward, short-term to your wallet. Ten years, 200x, why are you still losing money? I ask you. All eaten up by big players, and you're still calculating compound interest here.

View OriginalReply0

DataPickledFish

· 2025-12-10 04:33

It's this set of rhetoric again... Two hundred times in ten years is a cow, but now gold has outperformed it, can you believe it? Smart money has long been on the bus, and latecomers have to be stabbed. I believe in it for a long time, but don't tell me the story of migrant workers making rich, those times have passed. Once liquidity is broken, highly volatile assets will be the first to be finished, which is not a problem for BTC, but fate. Most of the people who enter the market now are receivers, don't be dazzled by the illusion of compound interest. It sounds fierce to double 200 times in ten years, but the risk is also 200 times, who can bear it? If the funds are gone, it's over, and no matter how many stories there are, they will be in vain.

View OriginalReply0

LazyDevMiner

· 2025-12-08 05:51

A 200x return and still think it's too slow—this mindset is wild, haha.

View OriginalReply0

MultiSigFailMaster

· 2025-12-08 05:46

Complaining that a 200x return is still too expensive—now that's a mindset! Everyone wants to buy the bottom, no one wants to buy the top. Gold's current suppression is indeed remarkable, but don't forget, periods of risk aversion are just like this. Once liquidity loosens up, it'll be our turn to go wild again. Top players eat the meat, retail investors get the scraps—same old story. I'm bullish long-term, but you have to withstand short-term pullbacks. Can the cost of entering now really be the same as entering two years ago? This article is really just making one point—BTC is always expensive, and always worth holding. Institutions are building their positions, so don't rush to dump what you have.

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeCrier

· 2025-12-08 05:41

200x in ten years, but still underperforming gold? This contrast is pretty unbelievable.

View OriginalReply0

ChainComedian

· 2025-12-08 05:41

Wow, even with a 200x growth rate, it's still being suppressed by gold. That's just ridiculous. To put it bluntly, all the retail investors have already been wiped out, and there's no new blood coming in. Two hundred times in ten years sounds impressive, but unfortunately I didn't buy in 2015—I can only watch. Old money is cashing out, retail investors are paying tuition, and it's the same story every cycle. Compound interest is great, but only if you live long enough to see it. A-shares haven't lost? Then why am I still holding crypto, haha. As soon as liquidity loosens, it crashes—guess that's the fate of high-volatility assets. When it comes to market cap management, you have to look at how listed companies play the game. BTC really gets hit from both sides here. The status of digital gold has indeed been a bit awkward these past two years. Long-term uptrend? Maybe, but in the short term I'm bleeding badly.

View OriginalReply0