An interesting moment occurred in the crypto community. Ray Dalio, the legendary hedge fund manager at Bridgewater Associates, once again spoke skeptically about Bitcoin, and that triggered a wave of responses from crypto experts.

In his All-In podcast, Dalio laid out the old criticism again: Bitcoin supposedly does not have gold’s characteristics because it has no support from central banks, limited privacy, and the threat of quantum computing. Plus, he pointed to blockchain transparency as a downside. Honestly, this sounds like textbook arguments from the pre-crypto era.

But here’s the interesting part. Matt Hougan from Bitwise zeroed in on the core of the problem: it is precisely these risks that explain why Bitcoin is currently trading at only about 4% of gold’s market capitalization. At the current price of around 73,88K, Bitcoin is valued at roughly $1.48 trillion, while gold is worth many times more. But Hougan sees it differently. In his view, long-term investors are betting that developers will solve the quantum-risk problem, and that central banks will reconsider their position. He even noted that without these critical remarks, Bitcoin would already be worth a million per coin.

Alex Thorn from Galaxy directly called Dalio’s arguments outdated narratives from the post-blockchain era. Thorn noted that the crypto community has been factoring in quantum risks for a long time, and that Bitcoin’s practical usefulness goes far beyond simple comparisons to gold. Gold can sit in a vault, while Bitcoin works as an instrument with growing institutional support.

Matthew Siegel from VanEck suggested a broader look at the situation. He sees it as a debate between the monetary architecture of the last century and the one being shaped right now. Gold solved the trust problem in an analog system; Bitcoin solves it in a digital environment through open-source code and verifiable transactions. Regarding quantum threats, Siegel reminded people that this is a problem for the entire financial system, not a unique shortcoming of Bitcoin. What’s more, central banks are already starting to experiment with digital assets, and privacy improvements are emerging thanks to better wallet practices and second-layer networks.

Honestly, the discussion shows that although Dalio’s criticism is technically grounded, it has long been built into market valuation. Younger investors are increasingly favoring Bitcoin, and that points to a gradual shift in the center of money. Perhaps precisely because the risks have already been accounted for, Bitcoin remains an interesting asset for long-term players.