Those who search and learn - they will get through the last paragraph understanding the volatility of BTC - they sure will address such concerns, but I see that mostly, in such articles - they do the same thing with outlining that BTC is not stable and has some risks. 

Sturdy big entities are using what was tested with time - they cannot bear the view in which there is uncertainty and something that wasn't already used.

Those who will be ahead of the game will get the most out of the current situation, having a lead and potential going already.

Bitcoin has always been a hedge against inflation, not just this year. The thing about Bitcoin is, it's a global currency (even if not officially for some). So, when a country is struggling, people can just buy Bitcoin to protect their money from inflation. Without Bitcoin, that would be much harder to do. That’s why we should be thankful that something as decentralized as Bitcoin was created.

Think of it this way: Bitcoin is naturally volatile, unpredictable, and it doesn’t behave like traditional investments. But despite that, why are institutional investors going all in on Bitcoin? The answer to that pretty much answers the question in the OP.

It's definitely a hedge against inflation and will continue to be so due to the principles it's based on which can always attract strong demands that are stronger than its "ever" decreasing supply,  leading to continuous price gain, but this depends on certain key factors that are considered good for the Bitcoin system.

I wouldn't count the volatility as an issue as it's not that high. And it can't be a sustainable/proper hedge against inflation without that kind of volatility otherwise price will keep going up without ever going doing down and vice versa. The proper way to fluctuate and become a sustainable hedge against inflation is to go up more and down less. And when this is happening it's seen as volatility. But how can it be a hedge against inflation without behaving in that manner. If it fluctuate very little like fiat currencies prices of goods and services will keep going up against it as they become scarce. So, the fluctuations, especially upward movements, have to be big enough to make it a hedge against inflation. Its principles and certain important factors make this happen organically rather artificially like how price of fiat currencies are controlled.

Bitcoin has always been a hedge against inflation. If you live in a country where the currency lost almost 40% in a few months, you will understand how helpful Bitcoin is. People who keep their money in banks as fixed deposits are just wasting money. If you don't want your money to lose value overtime, convert them to Bitcoin.

But you need some level of knowledge for you to benefit from Bitcoin as a hedge against inflation. If you buy Bitcoin during the bull season because you want to protect your funds from inflation, it will not work unless you have a long-term plan. Selling it during the bear season because of impatience will lead to losses. So people need to understand the timing of the Bitcoin cycle before they use Bitcoin as a shield against inflation.

Yes correct, Bitcoin was ritually attacked by "the institutions" they possibly saw it as a threat
or something used by anarchists, scammers and criminals.

Over the last year at least that has changed probably starting with the approval of the spot
ETF's in the us, they alone because they were applied for by the top investment institutions
have given validity to Bitcoin as a viable option to add to any "portfolio"

Its still early days for a lot of institutions but they are slowly warming to it as a hedge, time
will reveal more.

MicroStrategy and El Salvador has been an eye opener to other institutions and government to see that bitcoin is an hedge to inflation overtime. It's funny to see that every investor or institution who already know about bitcoin after the price hits $100k are eager to invest in bitcoin to save their funds from inflation.

This bull run has really cleared the doubt in many peoples mind who were against bitcoin in the beginning and currently, they are trying to see how they can buy aggressively overtime. Bitcoin is a store of value and that's why we are lucky to be part of the train because bitcoin is still in her early stage.

The conclusion part of the article says this -


It makes complete sense! Bitcoin can indeed drop 30% or more in a week. It is highly volatile in nature. So I don't know what's wrong in it. This is true! That's why, investing everything into Bitcoin may give disastrous result as well.

The article contains a lot of errors and seems like it was written by some frustrated hater who thinks he or she knows some things, but really doesn't do enough research.

Let's start with:    

Five mining pools control over 67% of network hash power, raising concerns about potential 51% attacks.
    Just 2% of wallets hold 95% of all circulating BTC.
This centralization undermines the idea of Bitcoin as a universally safe and democratic asset.

If the author knew anything about 51% attack, he'd know that it doesn't matter how many pools there are as long as none of them goes over 51%. None of the mentioned 6 are even close to being at 50% and they will not go there because bitcoin incentivizes fairness. If you have a company that owns enough mining machines to come close to 50% it's in your best interest not to cross that line! There's more money to be made by being fair and not jeopardize the whole operation. I thought we were past fear mongering with 51%.

Despite all the hype, Bitcoin still isn’t used much for everyday transactions:
Network fees are often $5–$15.

Oh really? What does often mean? Last time fees went above $5 was in December! That's over 5 months ago. But there's more. He claims they often reach $15 which is a blatant lie because the average fee hasn't been at these levels since June 2024. If the fees go crazy due to some unexpected event once in a few years, like it did with Ordinals, it doesn't happen often. If you get drunk once a year, you won't say you do it often, but rather that it happens rarely. When someone says otherwise, you call him a liar, am I right? I don't know what this guy's problem is, but he needs to check the numbers and shut up.

Whoever wrote the article is just rambling, he couldn't even stay on point. How does these quotes relate to inflation?


Using volatility to question Bitcoin ability as an hedge against inflation is erroneous. From few cents, the price has appreciated to thousands of dollars and it's still appreciating, while the purchasing power of fiat is continually declining. Isn't that enough evidence it's an hedge against inflation?