2026-01-13 03:25:17

People often say that Bitcoin is Tulip 2.0, but this analogy doesn't hold up.

The essence of Bitcoin is not a speculative game, but a collective choice made by global institutions and "smart money" to solve the problem of wealth storage. Just as Google monopolized search and English became an international language, it has secured its position through market competition — this is not a bubble, but a victory of network effects.

More importantly, there is physical world energy backing it. Behind Bitcoin, there is computing power equivalent to 20 nuclear reactors operating, which means it is not an intangible digital asset but has real costs and defensive capabilities. This mechanism makes it more like a "currency union" armed with cryptography — destroying it would be prohibitively expensive.

So, while tulips can crash to zero overnight, Bitcoin continues to confirm its value cycle after cycle. That is the key difference. $BTC

BTC1,46%

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.

11 Likes

Reward
11
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

LiquidatedDreams

· 5h ago

The tulip analogy really should be discarded; the explanation of network effects is quite reasonable. Bitcoin is supported by those 20 nuclear reactors; that's true hard currency. Cycle-confirmed value vs. zeroed out overnight, the difference is not trivial.

View OriginalReply0

BottomMisser

· 5h ago

Alright, this set of network effects logic really hits the point. The tulip analogy has been overused, every time I hear it I want to roll my eyes. 20 nuclear reactor-level computing power, that analogy made me laugh, there's definitely something there. No fault in that, but even in a bear market, it still feels fragile. Don't oversell it. The network effects set, Google and English examples are pretty good, but can Bitcoin really be as stable as them? The cryptography-armed currency union, I need to remember this description, it's brilliant. Bitcoin's cycle confirming value is indeed more reliable than just hype. But the problem is, ordinary people can't tell the difference between network effects and whale support, that's the reality. I agree with this logic, but don't discuss it with believers, it's really a waste of time.

View OriginalReply0

Hash_Bandit

· 5h ago

ngl the hashrate argument always hits different... those 20 reactors worth of compute ain't just vibes, that's actual skin in the game fr

Reply0

AirdropGrandpa

· 5h ago

The tulip analogy really should be retired. Someone always brings it up, but they completely don't understand the underlying logic of BTC. The comparison of 20 nuclear reactor-level computing power is spot on. That's the true moat.

View OriginalReply0

FlippedSignal

· 6h ago

Tulip Theory really should die. No one has talked about the energy cost aspect; I’ve gained some new insights.

View OriginalReply0

ChainSpy

· 6h ago

The tulip analogy really should come to an end. The computing power equivalent to 20 nuclear reactor-levels is essentially just cost. When the cost is unbalanced, Bitcoin can't be toppled either.

View OriginalReply0

PortfolioAlert

· 6h ago

20 reactor-grade computing power, sounds hardcore, how does Tulip compare?

View OriginalReply0