The Open Wrestling Match Between Gold and Bitcoin

Against the backdrop of the escalating struggle between the United States and China, a fierce battle over money and capital is raging—one in which, instead of blood, billions of dollars are spilled and the global monetary space is transformed into an open arena.

On 15 August 1971, President Richard Nixon announced the floating of the dollar and its decoupling from gold, so that its value would be determined on the basis of confidence in the U.S. economy and its dynamism.

Human development then produced artificial intelligence, the blockchain system, and highly reliable digital currencies—foremost among them Bitcoin—capable of reengineering public debt and reshaping cross-border financial transfers. Digital currency even offers the United States a rare opportunity: to monetize its debts in a virtual digital “cloud.”

This American plan does not mean replacing U.S. government bonds with cryptocurrencies. Rather, it means that, while maintaining the dollar as the reference point, every smartphone or computer effectively turns into a digital IOU drawn on the U.S. Treasury.

Through precisely this mechanism, the United States—burdened with a debt approaching thirty-seven trillion dollars—will work to “reduce its astronomical obligations.” In practical terms, this will mean further inflation as a result of increasing the supply of U.S. digital dollars, such that every dollar holder becomes, in effect, a partner in covering that debt.

In contrast—and in almost complete opposition—China is working to entrench the yuan as an alternative to the dollar within its own independent global monetary sphere. To bolster confidence in its currency among partner states, Beijing has taken an unprecedented step: linking the yuan to gold as a symbol of historical financial certainty and a refuge of solid trust.

Thus, a fierce struggle is unfolding between two competing international monetary systems.

The first system revolves around digital currency as a dynamic, programmable intermediary that derives its value from the bets of economic powers, accelerates growth and competition, and guarantees flexibility and liquidity. Bitcoin in particular opens the door to hyper-fast, cross-border speculation and risk-taking, consolidating an exchange pattern that prioritizes the acceleration of risk over the maximization of financial leverage.

The second system, by contrast, rests on gold as a tangible, solid, and slow intermediary that consolidates a simpler capitalist exchange pattern, one that restrains speculation and risk.

China, in this sense, is offering an alternative narrative: the restoration of trust through a physical asset that can neither be printed nor frozen. It is pursuing an organized program of gold purchases and building a logistical infrastructure of cross-border vault networks centered on the Shanghai Gold Exchange. In this system, gold becomes a recognized financial guarantee, as Beijing wagers on turning gold from a passive store of value into an instrument of developmental finance.

Gold may indeed remedy the erosion of trust in the American system, but it also constrains the flexibility of expansion; it is a “welcome brake” against excess, yet its cost is a slowdown in financial market innovation. Both wagers, moreover, remain exposed to regulatory policies that can radically reset pricing.

In a world with dual monetary standards, liquidity and legal flexibility grow in importance to a degree comparable to that of financial assets themselves. Strategically, the two standards coexist and compete: an Eastern standard backed by gold, and a Western one that is digital and programmable. Money itself becomes the referee.

The key question, therefore, is not “Which one do we choose?” but rather “How do we manage an orderly coexistence between the two systems?” Adaptation can distribute risk, provided that legislative governance is in place, that custodial rules are strict, and that the potential for arbitrariness is curtailed.

Ultimately, gold and Bitcoin do not confront each other over price or profits, but over a grand narrative: Is money a social commitment constrained by the limits of nature and material scarcity? Or is it a protocol powered by mathematics and communication networks that amplify financial capital and transform cash into a complex, endlessly recyclable global debt?

Accordingly, the question today is not which asset we will hold, but which trust architecture we will preserve—and which economic model we will choose to build.