@ Jakk Goodday
2025-02-28 05:07:17
In our daily lives, we often measure the value of things using familiar monetary units such as baht or dollars. We feel delighted when our investments **"increase"** in these units.
However, few people stop to consider how stable the measuring stick itself is. If the ruler we use to measure value keeps shrinking, the objects we measure may appear longer, even though their actual size remains unchanged. This concept reflects the way we assess economic value in constantly changing monetary units, leading us to the principle of opportunity cost in investment: when we choose to hold one type of asset, we are always giving up the opportunity to earn returns from another.
Understanding what serves as our standard measure and the opportunity costs that come with it is the first step toward exploring a new perspective on wealth assessment.
In this context, Bitcoin has been proposed as a new **"standard"** for measuring value, much like gold once served as the global financial standard in the past. Some view Bitcoin as the "digital gold standard" that could support the international financial system in the future.
A key reason Bitcoin is considered **"sound money"** is its rarity—something modern currencies lack. Its supply is permanently capped at 21 million units, meaning no central bank can print more at will. This contrasts with fiat money, such as the dollar or baht, which constantly increases in supply due to government policies.
As a result, Bitcoin is resistant to inflation-induced depreciation and can retain its value over the long term, much like gold in the past. Many therefore consider it **"sound money"**—a form of currency that is stable and reliable in preserving value over time.
This idea opens the door to using Bitcoin as a benchmark for comparing the value of other assets, offering a fresh perspective on the economy.
Imagine a graph that compares the leading stock index, **the S&P 500, in Bitcoin terms instead of dollars.**
This graph would reveal a drastically different picture from the conventional charts we are familiar with. Looking back to 2011, the S&P 500 was around 1,300 points, while Bitcoin was priced at less than $1.
This means the S&P 500 index was valued at approximately 1,300 BTC at the time. However, as Bitcoin's price surged over the years—reaching tens of thousands of dollars per BTC in 2021–2022—the value of the S&P 500, when measured in BTC, shrank dramatically.
Suppose the S&P 500 currently stands at around 4,000 points, while Bitcoin is priced at six figures in dollars. The entire S&P 500 index might be worth less than 0.05 BTC.
The resulting graph would show a consistent downward trend in the S&P 500's value **(when measured in BTC)** over the past decade.
This means Bitcoin has appreciated relative to traditional financial assets like stocks—to the extent that simply holding Bitcoin has outperformed investing in major stock indices.
As surprising as this may seem, the data tells this story: from the perspective of a Bitcoin standard, even the high-performing U.S. stock market appears lackluster.
Data from the past decade reinforces this view. Bitcoin has outperformed nearly every asset class known today. In numerical terms, Bitcoin delivered an average annual return of **approximately 230% from 2011 to 2021**, whereas the S&P 500, which is renowned for its consistent performance, achieved an average annual return of just over 10%.
When compounded over time, this means Bitcoin's value increased by tens of thousands of percent over the past decade, while the S&P 500's value rose by only a few hundred percent.
The magnitude of this difference is significant enough to reshape how we perceive investment success. Observations also indicate that in just **the past five years, the S&P 500 has lost nearly 90% of its value when measured in Bitcoin.**
In other words, for someone using Bitcoin as their benchmark, a 100-baht investment in stocks at the beginning of this period would be worth only about 10 baht today—the remaining 90 baht representing the opportunity cost of not holding Bitcoin.
This perspective challenges our assumptions about the stability of supposedly safe assets when evaluated under a new standard.
This comparison also highlights the issue of fiat currency depreciation—something we are familiar with but often underestimate. The U.S. dollar, the world's primary reserve currency, has **lost over 96% of its purchasing power since 1913**.
This means that what $1 could buy back then now requires nearly $30. This ongoing depreciation implies that prices in fiat terms may rise even when real value does not. For example, the S&P 500 frequently reaches all-time highs in U.S. dollar terms.
However, when adjusted for inflation or money supply expansion, its real value has not increased as much as it seems. Some analyses suggest that since the 2008 financial crisis, although the S&P 500's nominal value has surged, when divided by the expanding money supply (such as M3), its graph remains largely unchanged from pre-crisis levels.
This suggests that stock prices have risen primarily in response to liquidity injections rather than genuine economic growth. Inflation and monetary expansion act like a **"fog,"** obscuring our ability to discern real value from mere numerical increases.
When Bitcoin is used as a comparative unit, it acts as a clear lens that removes this inflationary fog, revealing a completely different picture.
The same applies when comparing commodity prices in BTC. A notable experiment by the St. Louis Federal Reserve once examined the price of **"a dozen eggs"** in both dollars and Bitcoin. While the study aimed to highlight Bitcoin’s volatility, it inadvertently reinforced the point that during periods of high inflation, the price of eggs, which seemed to rise continuously in dollars, actually remained stable or even declined in BTC terms.
This amusing example illustrates the profound impact of measurement standards.
Of course, Bitcoin itself is highly volatile and still in its early stages compared to traditional assets. Its meteoric rise over the past decade does not guarantee that all asset graphs in BTC terms will continue declining indefinitely. However, what has already transpired provides deep financial insights.
**The first takeaway** is the concept of opportunity cost mentioned earlier—every financial decision has an inherent cost, even if we do not always recognize it. Holding cash in a bank carries the opportunity cost of the returns one could earn by investing elsewhere. Investing in asset A means missing out on asset B, and if B delivers higher returns, we incur that loss.
Over the past decade, Bitcoin has outperformed all other assets by a wide margin, making the opportunity cost of not holding Bitcoin extremely high. Investors looking back on this period might regret not having bought Bitcoin earlier, but the key lesson is not about dwelling on past decisions—it is about becoming aware of **opportunity costs** and their long-term impact on wealth.
On a deeper level, this discussion raises questions about whether our current valuation framework is truly appropriate. If using a depreciating fiat currency as a benchmark distorts our perception of value, our economic decisions may be misaligned in the long run.
Imagine a scenario where money retains or even appreciates in value in line with real economic productivity (as Bitcoin was designed to do). In such a system, people would not need to chase high returns merely to preserve their savings from inflation. They could plan finances with a longer-term perspective. Concepts like **"time preference"** and **"discounting the future"** would shift.
It is often argued that sound money encourages saving and long-term investment, whereas inflationary systems push people toward short-term spending or speculation out of fear that their money will lose value.
This is not just a matter of personal finance but a fundamental influence on the quality of economic growth and innovation. **A sound money standard** like **Bitcoin** might enforce stricter investment discipline, as liquidity injections could no longer be used as a safety net for unsustainable projects.
At this point, readers may not conclude that they should immediately hold Bitcoin instead of investing in other assets—and this article is not intended as investment advice. Its real purpose is to provoke thought about how we measure value.
**Ask yourself:** What unit do we use to gauge wealth and economic progress? Is that unit reliable?
If the money we use for measurement loses value every year, how can we be sure that increasing numbers on paper reflect true wealth growth?
Using Bitcoin as a reference standard is like measuring with a new ruler—one that may be more accurate. In many cases, it reveals unexpected insights and challenges long-held beliefs.
Ultimately, whether or not one believes in the **"Bitcoin standard"** is less important than the ability to critically examine the system we rely on daily.
Perhaps the greatest value Bitcoin and new financial philosophies offer is not a definitive answer but the impetus to look at the bigger economic picture with fresh eyes.
Thank you, Thai Ratel, for enlightening me on this topic!
Jakk Goodday.