In a recent analysis, Joshua Chu, co-chair of the Hong Kong Web3 Association, draws a parallel between the development of Bitcoin and the journey of an individual navigating through life’s various stages. He notes that Bitcoin, akin to youth filled with potential, is now facing the realities of midlife challenges as it gains institutional acceptance and public attention.
As Bitcoin’s prominence grows, so do the pressures associated with high expectations. This urgency can lead to risks and a sense of instability, highlighting the shift from its early days of seemingly infinite promise to a more constricted reality today. This sentiment was recently echoed in the financial world when CleanCore Solutions’ shares plummeted 60% following their announcement to pivot toward crypto treasury management, underscoring the rising skepticism regarding speculative ventures in cryptocurrencies.
Bitcoin’s performance over different market cycles appears to reflect a concerning trend of diminishing returns. Historical data indicates a significant decline in growth rates from an impressive 310 times in 2013 to a mere 2.1 times in 2025. This reduction raises critical questions about Bitcoin’s sustainability as a non-yielding asset. Citing Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s theories on asset fragility, the argument suggests that a faith-based asset like Bitcoin could face a reckoning if it fails to maintain its upward momentum.
The concept of Bitcoin as a faith-based asset was articulated by Ethereum co-founder Joe Lubin, who argued that belief in cryptocurrency—similar to belief in fiat currencies—could foster value. However, Chu emphasizes that unlike fiat, which is underpinned by economic policies and governmental support, Bitcoin lacks such intrinsic backing, making it more vulnerable to market fluctuations.
To overcome such challenges, Chu advocates for a pivot in focus from investing in Bitcoin as a standalone product to viewing blockchain technology as enduring infrastructure. The former has experienced explosive growth but now encounters limits, while the latter encompasses the foundational components necessary for supporting blockchain networks over time. This transition suggests that while individual technologies may eventually fade, the infrastructures that sustain them can endure.
As Bitcoin navigates this pivotal juncture, characterized by signs of maturity and potentially contracting volatility, seasoned investors seem to be adjusting their strategies. Many are reallocating their resources towards newer digital assets like Ethereum or the underlying infrastructure of blockchain instead.
Chu stresses the importance of a lifecycle perspective in assessing Bitcoin’s trajectory, comparing it to the natural signs of aging we experience in life. As Bitcoin approaches critical milestones, such as reaching 41 years of existence post its inception in 2009, stakeholders must carefully consider the evolving landscape and make informed, strategic decisions before committing to long-term investments in this space.
This analysis provides a thought-provoking look at Bitcoin’s current status amidst an ever-changing industry and urges investors and policymakers to reflect on both its past achievements and future challenges as they navigate the complex world of cryptocurrency and blockchain technology.
