Mentioned in This Article
1. Bitcoin vs gold: a column argues for holding both
In a column published on October 14, Steve Neamtz, chief executive of Yorkville America, argues that the bitcoin vs gold debate is a false choice. With gold near $4,200 an ounce and bitcoin (BTC) near $84,000, he writes, both assets answer the same worry about a weakening currency, and they differ mainly in how developed their market plumbing is.
The piece is an opinion column, and the views are the author's own. It arrives as the old question of whether to hold gold or so-called digital gold has returned to investor conversations, and it tries to move the discussion away from a winner-take-all contest.
Neamtz's core claim is that the two assets sit at different points along the same path. One has had thousands of years to build the institutions that support it; the other has had under two decades. That gap, he suggests, explains most of what separates them today.
2. What do gold and bitcoin have in common?
The shared trait, according to the column, is scarcity that policymakers cannot adjust. Neither central banks nor fiscal authorities can expand the supply of gold or bitcoin at will, and in a world carrying heavy public debt, Neamtz says, that common feature matters more than the differences in history or form.
The difference in track record is large, and he acknowledges it. Gold has served as a reserve asset for roughly 5,000 years. Bitcoin has existed for 17 years. A much shorter record gives investors far less empirical evidence on how it behaves across full economic cycles, which is a fair reason for caution about sizing a position.
Even so, the argument holds that the logic behind holding each asset is the same. Investors who buy either are not mainly chasing yield; they are looking for something whose supply does not depend on decisions made by governments and central banks.
This framing differs from the way the topic is often presented. Comparisons usually ask which asset is the better store of value and treat the answer as exclusive. The column instead asks what problem each asset solves, concludes that the problem is shared, and treats the choice between them as a question of timing and infrastructure rather than of principle.
3. Why does debt matter to the case for scarce assets?
The column places the argument against a fiscal backdrop. U.S. federal debt has passed $39 trillion, Neamtz notes, and the country spends roughly $1 trillion a year servicing it. He contends that when public finances are under strain, a currency often acts as a relief valve, absorbing the pressure through a loss of value.
As evidence he points to the experience of the dollar, which he says has lost roughly 40% of its purchasing power over two decades, citing a standard inflation calculator. The figure is offered to illustrate the slow erosion that a debasement thesis is meant to guard against, rather than a sudden collapse.
From that starting point, owning assets outside the reach of monetary and fiscal policy becomes a form of diversification. The author frames this as a hedge against a gradual process, not a prediction of any specific crisis, and he is careful to separate the idea from short-term price behavior.
Debasement is a term for the reduction in a currency's value, whether through inflation, expanded money supply or other policy choices. It tends to be gradual, which is why its effects are easy to overlook in any single year but visible over a decade or two. Neamtz's argument relies on that slow pace: the case for scarce assets is a long-horizon argument, and it is judged over years, not weeks.
4. Are gold and bitcoin safe havens?
Neamtz addresses the strongest objection directly. A 2025 peer-reviewed study in the journal Resources Policy used multifractal cross-correlation analysis across six asset classes, covering developed and emerging equities, bonds, commodities, energy and crypto. Its conclusion, which he quotes, was that “neither gold nor bitcoin can be classified as a hedge or safe haven for financial markets.”
He does not dispute the finding but limits what it shows. The research examines how the assets behave during market drawdowns, that is, whether they hold up when other holdings fall sharply. It does not, he argues, test whether either asset preserves value against a steadily depreciating currency over long periods.
That distinction is the center of his reasoning. Buyers of gold or bitcoin are often making what he calls a debasement bet, wagering that an asset independent of government promises will diversify a portfolio. Such a bet is not the same as expecting the asset to act as a shock absorber when stocks drop. Judged against the wrong goal, he says, both assets can look like failures.
The distinction between a hedge, a safe haven and a diversifier is worth keeping in mind. A hedge is expected to move against another asset, a safe haven to hold value in a crisis, and a diversifier simply to behave differently from the rest of a portfolio over time. The column asks readers to judge gold and bitcoin on the third criterion, which is the one its thesis actually supports.
5. Why is gold ahead in institutional adoption?
Gold, Neamtz writes, already has the custody arrangements, legal frameworks and reserve eligibility that let central banks act on concerns about debasement and reserve diversification today. Bitcoin does not yet have these in full, “at least not fully.”
He is clear that this lead should not be mistaken for a stronger underlying case. Gold's advantage reflects what he calls built plumbing, the accumulated infrastructure of vaults, standards and rules that took generations to assemble. It says little about whether the thesis behind gold is more compelling than the one behind bitcoin.
Bitcoin, in his view, is earlier on the same curve. Fewer investors understand it, and its appeal skews toward a younger generation. As familiarity grows and more of the supporting structure arrives, he suggests the gap in practical access could narrow, though he offers no timetable.
Custody is a useful example of what the plumbing means in practice. Large institutions need established ways to hold an asset safely, audit it, insure it and move it, and regulators need rules that define how such holdings are treated. Gold has had these arrangements for a very long time. For bitcoin, the arrangements are newer and still being extended, which affects how readily large pools of capital can take part.
6. What do central bank purchases show?
To show how real the institutional demand is, the column cites data from the World Gold Council. Central banks bought a record 289 metric tons of gold in the second quarter of 2026, after buying 244 metric tons in the first quarter.
Neamtz flags that the Council is funded by mining interests, which is a reason to read its figures with some care. He adds that the pace of buying is corroborated elsewhere, so the broad conclusion does not rest on one source alone.
For bitcoin, the main route into institutional portfolios is through spot exchange-traded funds. These products solve the problem of custody for many investors, he says, but they do not give bitcoin the status of a sovereign reserve asset. That remains the clearest area where gold is ahead.
Reserve status is a related point. A central bank can hold gold on its balance sheet as part of its official reserves without controversy. Doing the same with bitcoin would require a policy decision and a set of operational safeguards that most monetary authorities have not adopted, according to the column's description of the current gap.
7. Why pick a side at all?
The column's conclusion is that investors do not need to choose. Both assets, Neamtz argues, reflect the same debasement logic at different stages of maturity, and he notes that financial coverage in 2026 has begun to describe a single debasement trade rather than two separate ones.
In his view the practical question for 2027 is not which asset to own but how much of each to hold. He observes that their volatility profiles are very different, which makes sizing a real challenge: a position that is modest for gold may be large for bitcoin when measured by risk.
He also says that solutions helping investors size and combine the two assets will add value. The statement reflects his role at a firm in the investment business, and readers should treat it with that context in mind, as with any opinion piece written by a market participant.
The sizing point deserves emphasis. Volatility measures how widely an asset's price swings, and an asset with larger swings can dominate a portfolio's overall risk even if it makes up a small share of the money invested. That is why Neamtz treats the allocation question, rather than the choice between the two assets, as the more consequential decision for investors.
8. What are the risks?
The column closes with a standard risk disclosure. Gold and bitcoin can decline substantially, and either may fail to preserve purchasing power. Bitcoin in particular is described as highly speculative and volatile.
The disclosure adds that diversification does not ensure a profit or protect against a loss, and that investment products carry additional fees and risks. Those caveats matter because the argument for holding both assets is about portfolio construction over long periods, not a promise about returns in any given month.
For investors weighing the idea, the column's contribution is a framework rather than a forecast. It reframes gold and bitcoin as complements that answer a single concern, and it leaves open how much of a portfolio each should occupy, a decision that depends on individual goals and tolerance for volatility.