A common question that is often raised: Is Bitcoin Tulip 2.0? Recently, in an interview with Natalie Brunell, well-known investor Michael Saylor provided an in-depth response to this topic.

His core argument is very clear—comparing Bitcoin to the tulip bubble in history is fundamentally problematic. Why?

The reason the tulip craze eventually collapsed was because it lacked intrinsic support. A flower, no matter how rare, is still just a flower. It has no store of value function and no network effects. When people buy tulips, they are betting that they can sell them at a higher price later, which is a classic zero-sum game.

Bitcoin, on the other hand, is different. It is backed by a decentralized ledger, cryptographic security, and global liquidity. Every halving event and network upgrade represents tangible technological progress. Moreover, over more than ten years of operation, this system has proven its resilience—having endured countless FUD, technical challenges, and regulatory pressures, it remains standing.

More importantly, Bitcoin has programmed scarcity—its total supply is capped at 21 million coins, a number that will never change. This is something tulips cannot achieve. Tulips can be propagated infinitely, with new varieties constantly emerging; their scarcity is essentially illusory.

Saylor’s viewpoint points to a bigger question: what determines the long-term value of an asset? It’s not hype, but the real functions it provides and its scarcity attributes. From this perspective, comparing Bitcoin to tulips actually reflects a misunderstanding of Bitcoin’s nature as a digital currency and a store of value.