Bitcoin is not speculation: Saylor challenges the comparison with the tulip bubble

The narrative about whether Bitcoin represents a new “tulip bubble” remains a point of debate in financial markets. But Michael Saylor, during his conversation with Natalie Brunell, presented a compelling argument: the similarity to the 17th-century Dutch bubble is superficial and incorrect.

The fundamental difference: physical reality vs. pure speculation

Unlike tulip bulbs (whose prices were purely speculative without tangible backing), Bitcoin is backed by concrete energy infrastructure. Saylor pointed out that the Bitcoin network consumes energy equivalent to approximately 20 nuclear reactors, which represents a real material cost in maintaining the protocol. This physical basis radically distinguishes it from historical speculative bubbles, where speculation is not anchored in anything substantial.

Bitcoin as “smart money” to preserve value

Saylor presented Bitcoin not as a speculative asset, but as a deliberate choice for “smart money” seeking to protect and preserve wealth in the long term. He compared its dominance in the cryptocurrency market to phenomena like Google in search engines or the English language in global communications: they are standards that emerged naturally due to their superior utility, not due to speculative mania.

A monetary union with structural solidity

The executive emphasized that Bitcoin functions as a robust “monetary union,” with consensus mechanisms that make it resistant to manipulation and typical speculative cycles. This perspective repositions the debate: it’s not about whether Bitcoin will go up or down in price, but whether it represents a valid monetary standard to preserve value in a world of fiat inflation.

The comparison to tulips, then, loses relevance when examining the underlying infrastructure.