Many people can't tell the difference between Bitcoin and tokenized gold. The core distinction is that one is a "digitally native scarce asset," while the other is "bringing physical assets on-chain." These two aren't in competition; they're more like two legs of a well-balanced portfolio.

Let's start with Bitcoin. The 21 million supply cap is hardcoded, relying on network-wide consensus rather than any institutional backing. Its advantages are obvious—high liquidity and significant appreciation potential—but the trade-off is extreme volatility. Annualized volatility can reach 50% to 80%, and price swings can be triggered by shifts in policy or technology upgrades.

Tokenized gold is much more stable. Since it's pegged to physical reserves, it naturally inherits gold's safe-haven properties, with low volatility. On-chain transactions are far more convenient than dealing with physical bars, and you can even plug into DeFi protocols for innovative use cases. The catch is that you have to trust the custodian—whether the reserves are sufficient and whether redemption can go smoothly; these are all potential risk points.

The allocation logic is actually very clear: aggressive investors go for Bitcoin to seek high returns, while conservative ones choose tokenized gold to preserve capital. Institutions are smarter—they allocate to both, using this combination to hedge against macroeconomic and geopolitical uncertainties.