Regarding the long-standing debate over whether Bitcoin can replace gold, recent industry voices have offered a new perspective — the so-called scarcity of gold is not absolute, while top-tier crypto assets each possess their own hard currency attributes.

Let's first examine the traditional logical flaws. Gold is regarded as a store of wealth because of its natural scarcity. The problem is that, with advances in refining technology and deep-sea mining, artificial production or large-scale extraction of gold becomes possible, which could undermine its value support. Once scarcity is broken, the pricing power immediately shifts.

In contrast, leading assets in the crypto market are different. Take BTC, for example — its total supply cap of 21 million coins is embedded in the code. This is not a promise; it’s a rule — no one can change it, and no one dares to. This absolute supply constraint is a ceiling that cannot be broken, regardless of mining technology.

ETH's approach is even more interesting. After the merge, it completely shed the inflation pressure under traditional proof-of-stake. More importantly, the transaction fees are burned, making the circulating supply decrease over time. The more ecosystem applications and transactions, the more pronounced the deflationary effect.

Some popular tokens even take burning mechanisms to the extreme, periodically or irregularly repurchasing and burning tokens, actively creating supply shortages. This proactive deflation strategy allows holders to directly benefit from the project's growth.

A comparison clearly shows the difference. The value of gold depends on human psychological expectations and physical utility; while BTC’s value is determined by code — ETH’s by mechanisms. One is a traditional consensus asset, the other is a digital asset protected by both technology and economics.

This is not a choice between one or the other. But when it comes to the certainty and verifiability of scarcity, crypto assets indeed have the upper hand.