In a three-minute video published in early December 2020, Forbes Media chairman and editor-in-chief Steve Forbes delivered a blunt assessment of Bitcoin: the world's largest cryptocurrency is “not yet” the new gold, and its hard supply cap will eventually “severely hinder its future usefulness.” The video, part of Forbes' “What's Ahead” series, reignited the long-standing debate over whether Bitcoin can truly serve as a reliable store of value.
Volatility as a Fatal Flaw
Forbes acknowledged that Bitcoin has had a “tear” year, largely driven by fears that central banks are printing too much money. However, he quickly pivoted to criticize the asset's price instability. “Bitcoin only works best when it has a stable value,” Forbes said, reading from prepared notes. He illustrated the point with a memorable metaphor: “steak one day, dog food the next, fillet the day after that.” Such wild fluctuations, he argued, make Bitcoin unsuitable as a medium of exchange or a reliable store of wealth.
A longtime gold advocate, Forbes reiterated that gold remains “the best insurance against inflation” precisely because its purchasing power is relatively stable over centuries. He contrasted gold's centuries-long track record with Bitcoin's brief, volatile history. The criticism echoes recent remarks from Tom Jessop, president of Fidelity Digital Assets, who said that Bitcoin is still a “potential store of value” due to extreme volatility and has not yet achieved the “mantle of a true store of value.”
The Supply Cap Debate: Rare vs. Too Rare
The core of Forbes' argument centered on Bitcoin's fixed supply of 21 million coins. He dismissed the hard cap as an “arbitrary supply limit” that would ultimately cripple the cryptocurrency's functionality. “That arbitrary supply limit will severely hinder its future usefulness,” Forbes stated. In his view, a monetary asset must have the ability to adjust its supply in response to economic demand; Bitcoin's absolute scarcity creates a deflationary bias that encourages hoarding over spending, undermining its role as currency.
Forbes then explained why gold has succeeded as money for over 4,000 years: “The issuance of gold increased about 2% a year. That keeps gold rare but not too rare.” This annual increment, he argued, provides enough liquidity for commerce and industrial use while preserving value over time. By contrast, Bitcoin's unforgiving cap might lead to extreme price appreciation that pricing out practical transactions and makes it a purely speculative asset.
Industry Skepticism in 2020
Forbes' video arrived amid a broader wave of skepticism from traditional finance figures. Tom Jessop of Fidelity had previously noted that Bitcoin's volatility prevented it from being classified as a store of value, despite growing institutional interest. At the time, Bitcoin was trading near $19,000, having rallied from below $8,000 in March 2020, but its price swings remained dramatic — daily corrections of 10% or more were not uncommon.
Proponents of Bitcoin counter that gold's 2% inflation is neither guaranteed nor costless: it requires continuous mining energy and geological risk, while Bitcoin's supply schedule is mathematically deterministic and auditable by anyone. They also argue that Bitcoin's volatility will decline as market capitalization grows and adoption deepens — a process already visible in 2020's influx of institutional buyers like MicroStrategy and Square.
Forbes concluded his video by reiterating his preference for gold and warning that Bitcoin's design flaws will eventually catch up with it. Whether he is right or wrong, the debate he helped frame — “rare but not too rare” — remains central to the cryptocurrency's value proposition. As Bitcoin entered its second decade, the question of what makes a good money continues to divide believers and skeptics.