Crypto experts are pushing back after billionaire hedge fund manager Ray Dalio renewed his skepticism about bitcoin
Speaking on the All-In Podcast, the Bridgewater Associates founder said bitcoin should not be compared to gold because it lacks central bank backing, offers limited privacy and could face an existential threat from future advances in quantum computing. Dalio also pointed to the asset’s public ledger, suggesting transactions can be monitored and potentially controlled.
Dalio, who said last year that he has about a 1% allocation to bitcoin, isn’t new to the criticism of the digital asset. At the time, he said bitcoin faces challenges as a global reserve asset due to its traceability and potential vulnerabilities from quantum computing.
However, industry figures say those critiques reflect longstanding debates around bitcoin, and that the risks Dalio highlighted are already reflected in bitcoin’s much smaller market value compared to gold.
Bitcoin’s risks are also its upside
However, some analysts say those critiques are exactly why bitcoin is worth buying.
“Dalio’s not ‘wrong’ in an absolute sense,” Matt Hougan, chief investment officer at asset manager Bitwise, told CoinDesk. “There really is some risk with quantum and central banks really aren’t buying bitcoin yet.”
But Hougan said those concerns are precisely why bitcoin still trades far below, roughly 4%, of gold’s total market size. Bitcoin’s market cap currently stands at around $1.4 trillion, compared to gold’s estimated $35 trillion
“These criticisms are quite literally the opportunity,” he said. “We invest in bitcoin because we think these things will change over time; that developers will solve quantum risk and central banks will come around.”
“If these critiques did not exist, bitcoin would already be at $1 million a coin,” he added.
‘Tired’ old narratives
Alex Thorn, Galaxy’s head of research, said Dalio’s arguments echo older narratives from bitcoin’s early years.
“Ray Dalio’s Bitcoin critiques are reminiscent of tired narratives from the pre-2017 era,” Thorn said in an email, adding that quantum risks are already being addressed by developers.
Read more: Here’s why the quantum threat for bitcoin may be smaller than people fear
He also said that comparing bitcoin to gold is fair but overlooks how the two assets differ in practice. “Gold might function well stored in a bunker or at the New York Fed, but Bitcoin has actual real-world utility in ways that gold could never match,” he said, pointing to the asset’s growing adoption by both individuals and institutions over nearly two decades.
Monetary shift
Matthew Sigel, head of digital assets research at VanEck, said both gold and bitcoin “have a role” as they represent hard assets from different monetary eras.
“Ultimately, this is a debate between the monetary architecture of the last century and the one emerging in this one,” he said in an email.
Gold, in his view, solved the trust problem in an “analog” financial system built around reported reserves and custodians. Meanwhile, bitcoin addresses that in a digital environment through open-source development and verifiable transactions.
He added that central banks — like the Czech National Bank — are already beginning to experiment with digital asset exposure and that privacy improvements are emerging through better wallet practices and second-layer networks.
Sigel also pushed back on the quantum computing concern, saying the issue affects the entire financial system rather than bitcoin alone. “Quantum risk is a broader cryptography challenge facing the entire financial system, not a flaw unique to bitcoin,” he said.
Investor surveys, he said, also show that younger investors increasingly favor bitcoin, suggesting a gradual shift in “monetary center.”
Read more: ‘Big Short’ Micheal Burry spots 2022 vibes in bitcoin crash