Bitcoin Author Says the Asset Could Be Less Volatile Than Gold

Bitcoin’s ability to function as “money” is back in the spotlight as two prominent voices clash over whether its fixed supply condemns it to excessive price swings—or whether volatility naturally fades as adoption grows.

Saifedean Ammous, author of The Bitcoin Standard, argued in a Tuesday post on X that Bitcoin is already operating as a medium of exchange. In his view, the key test isn’t whether BTC is used everywhere for everyday payments today, but whether it is monetizing in a way that ultimately supports broader currency functions.

Key takeaways

• Ammous says Bitcoin’s monetization can progress even without widespread retail payment usage, and expects volatility’s impact to lessen over time.
• Professor Lawrence H. White disputes this framing, arguing that Bitcoin’s lack of supply response makes it too volatile for a reliable medium of exchange.
• White also claims stablecoins have displaced Bitcoin’s transaction-volume role—an argument Ammous does not directly address in the cited exchange.
• Other industry figures have forecast Bitcoin eventually rivaling gold, but market-cap scale implies that any “overtake” would require substantial growth.

Ammous: Bitcoin can be money even before it’s “everywhere”

Ammous’s argument centers on a practical distinction: holding Bitcoin can already be interpreted as using Bitcoin as money, regardless of its current footprint as a day-to-day payment method. He points to the idea that Bitcoin’s volatility may become less disruptive as adoption increases and trading dynamics mature.

In his Tuesday X post, Ammous wrote that Bitcoin can serve as a medium of exchange as it becomes less volatile than gold, and suggested that Bitcoin’s monetization path is strengthening. He also emphasized that the absence of broad payment usage is not, by itself, evidence against the ongoing process of Bitcoin becoming a monetary asset.

White: fixed supply prevents a stable exchange medium

Professor Lawrence H. White’s response is rooted in a more traditional monetary-mechanics concern. According to White—writing in a Monday X post that references chapter six of his book Better Money: Gold, Fiat, or Bitcoin?—Bitcoin’s fixed supply means it cannot adjust in response to shifts in demand.

That, White argues, produces a volatility profile that undermines Bitcoin’s suitability as a reliable medium of exchange. In the same thread, White adds that stablecoins have “eaten BTC’s lunch transaction volume,” linking Bitcoin’s transaction role to the emergence of assets designed specifically for price stability.

The debate’s real trade-off: volatility versus monetary function

At the heart of the dispute is a question investors and builders frequently grapple with: does a currency need to be stable from the start, or can it become stable enough (relative to alternatives) as adoption expands?

Ammous’s framing implies a gradual transition. If Bitcoin’s price fluctuations dampen as liquidity deepens and the market’s behavior changes, then its function as money could improve even without immediate dominance in retail payments. White’s framing pushes the opposite direction: without an automatic supply response mechanism, Bitcoin may remain ill-suited for the kind of everyday reliability people expect from exchange mediums.

The two positions therefore differ not only on what Bitcoin is doing today, but on what timeline and market structure should be considered acceptable for “money” to emerge.

Predictions versus scale: could Bitcoin ever match gold?

While the Ammous–White exchange is conceptual, other commentators have tried to quantify where Bitcoin might land if its adoption continues. The article points to Bitwise’s European research head, André Dragosch, who told Cointelegraph in May 2025 that Bitwise’s in-house prediction model forecasts Bitcoin could reach $1 million by 2029, a level intended to bring Bitcoin’s market capitalization in line with gold.

That expectation runs into a scaling reality check. The piece notes that Bitcoin’s then-current market capitalization was about $1.6 trillion, while gold is near $29 trillion. To surpass gold by market cap terms, Bitcoin would need to grow by at least 18 times.

Separately, in April 2025, Blockstream CEO Adam Back argued that Bitcoin could eventually rival gold’s use cases as a monetary hedge—citing global financial instability and rising fiat inflation as key drivers. Those forecasts suggest a scenario where Bitcoin’s role shifts toward macro hedging rather than primarily replacing gold or fiat in daily transactions.

For readers, the implication is clear: even if Bitcoin ultimately becomes more “monetary” in broader portfolios, the path from that role to an exchange-medium role in day-to-day payments may follow different dynamics than simply hitting price targets.

What to watch next

The Ammous–White disagreement boils down to whether Bitcoin’s volatility will ease enough to support wider exchange functions without supply flexibility, and whether stablecoins continue to siphon activity from BTC on transaction metrics. For traders and long-term holders alike, the next signals to monitor are changes in volatility relative to major benchmarks, and evidence of whether Bitcoin’s usage profile shifts beyond trading toward more persistent monetary demand.

This article was originally published as Bitcoin Author Says the Asset Could Be Less Volatile Than Gold on Crypto Breaking News – your trusted source for crypto news, Bitcoin news, and blockchain updates.