Bitcoin hits new highs, reigniting bull vs. skeptic debate

Bitcoin tops $72,500: Crypto skeptics respond

Bitcoin is trading around $72,500. For some forum members, it has already surpassed the 2021 all-time high months earlier than expected; for others, the record remains unconfirmed. Each milestone brings the same taunt: How do you nocoiners feel now? The response was less bitter than anticipated. No one apologized for not holding cryptocurrency.

Has it broken the 2021 all-time high?

For some, yes: the price climbed to $72,500, leaving behind the 2021 benchmark when the market set its reference at $69,000. For others, the claim is premature and the peak is still unconfirmed. The discrepancy seems technical but points to something more uncomfortable: the difficulty of establishing a reference value for an asset that moves 75% in twelve months.

The argument from the crypto side is simple: those who stay out don't stand still, they get poorer. With inflation eating away savings, holding euros means losing purchasing power. A middle-ground stance summarizes the idea bluntly: the euro is just another coin. Those defending Bitcoin most vehemently add that gold no longer makes sense in a digital world and that central bank money doesn't cover the loss of value in savings.

Inflation as the central argument

The comparison with central banks is where the debate heats up. Some argue that banknotes are just colored paper backed only by human convention, and that any asset is worth exactly what people agree it's worth. From that logic, Bitcoin is no more artificial than the euro: it's another convention, with the advantage that no one can print more when the accounts don't balance.

Objections come from elsewhere: bank balance sheets. It is argued that not depreciating assets on the balance sheet is precisely what precedes a bank run, and that trusting the system out of habit isn't prudence, it's routine. The underlying question is whether a cryptocurrency without institutional backing is the logical refuge or the weakest link in the chain.

Gold, tulips, and what backs value

Gold comes up in every conversation and never fares well. One side argues it's at record highs in both euros and dollars; the other replies it's about to hit lows. Both claims circulated simultaneously, proving no one is looking at the same chart. Add a practical detail: verifying gold authenticity isn't trivial, while Bitcoin's is checked in seconds.

The comparison with Dutch tulips is the oldest trick in the book. The crypto side responds that the bubble lasted over fifteen years and Bitcoin has had a similar trajectory without fully deflating. The sharpest counterargument notes that stock indices represent companies with cash flow and intrinsic value, whereas Bitcoin would represent, at worst, speculators seeking the next buyer. Terra shares remain in archives as a reminder that not everything that spikes keeps rising. By the way, a tulip costs about four euros today.

From $60,000 to $16,000: the cost of volatility

The most repeated figure on the skeptical side is the crash: from $60,000 to $16,000 in twelve months, 75% evaporated effortlessly. Before that, there was another correction from $69,000 down to $15,000. Those who bought at the peak with borrowed money aren't discussing inflation now; they're paying installments. Hence the most common reproach: people only talk when prices rise, and during months of collapse, no one brings it up.

The underlying accusation is that public enthusiasm serves a commercial function: heating up the price to attract the next sucker. Supporters recall that corrections have claimed more losers than gains left by the rally, and that census doesn't appear on any chart. The response from the other side is that the market does what it does and no one sets the price manually, unlike what happens with gold and its ETF, they ensure.

Who wins, who loses, and survivorship bias

Here appears the hardest argument to refute: for every millionaire showing profits, thousands of ruined individuals financed the rise with credits, dubious products, and mid-tier platforms. Entire family fortunes were used to buy higher. That cost doesn't make headlines during records, and the true value of the episode, some argue, is educational: never before have bubbles inflated and deflated so quickly and with such media coverage.

There are also those who have been inside for a decade and tell a different story: selling to cover expenses, then selling again with profit, and today, with prices at highs, regretting doing so. It's the problem of being right too soon. On the other shore, someone confesses having held 0.8 bitcoins in 2018 and retaining nothing today. And hovering is the question neither side answers well: what life does a €3,000 investment solve, with tax authorities waiting for their share?

Bitcoin has just surpassed a ceiling many deemed impossible. Euro savings continue to lose purchasing power, silently and without headlines. Both things are true at once. Which one decides retirement in twenty years?