The belief that Bitcoin still has a long way to go is a reflection of the profound changes taking place in the current global financial system. Amid economic uncertainty, uncontrolled inflation, and dissatisfaction with the traditional banking system, Bitcoin has emerged as an alternative offering openness, transparency, and independent control over assets. Aggressive price movements are certainly its hallmark, but that's precisely where its appeal lies for many investors. Given that we're still in the transition to wider adoption, it's natural to feel like Bitcoin's peak is still far away. However, fundamental changes like this don't happen overnight. We'll see periods of euphoria and fear, but they're all part of the process toward a more mature ecosystem.

Your question is very relevant to the reality we face today. Bitcoin does promise easy global transactions, but there are reasons why its adoption in businesses hasn't yet become widespread for everyday use. Price volatility is clearly a major obstacle—it's difficult for businesses to operate with cash flows whose value can change drastically within hours. Furthermore, crypto accounting and taxation remain challenging, as most current financial systems aren't fully compatible with the blockchain ecosystem. Furthermore, there's also the issue of consumer adoption. While more and more people hold Bitcoin, most prefer to hold it rather than spend it, considering it an investment. Nevertheless, with the development of technologies like the Lightning Network or the integration of stablecoins into business cashier systems, we can be optimistic that the future of crypto payments remains bright.

What you're talking about is a common phenomenon in alternative asset markets like Bitcoin: the politicization of assets for electoral gain. Politicians, especially those who see opportunities in the crypto community, will undoubtedly capitalize on this momentum to expand their voter base. However, it's important to remember that any policy issued by powerful figures, such as Trump or other leaders, can be a double-edged sword—it can drive prices up or trigger a sharp correction. As long as the market views political power as the primary factor in determining Bitcoin's fate, volatility will remain high. Therefore, Bitcoin holders need to learn to focus not solely on political figures but also on developing adaptive and independent investment strategies to avoid being trapped in power plays.

Your view of Bitcoin's potential tenfold increase from its current price is interesting and often voiced, especially when comparing Bitcoin's market capitalization to gold. However, I think it's also important to remember that the crypto market remains fraught with uncertainty and volatility, so predictions like $1 million per BTC should be taken with caution. You're right that only investors who entered early—pre-2017—will achieve maximum returns, and for those saving now with small amounts, the effect will be more toward asset security than significant financial freedom. This underscores the importance of understanding that Bitcoin should not be viewed as a get-rich-quick solution, but rather as part of a broader and more realistic investment strategy.

You raise a very important point regarding Bitcoin's volatility and regulatory uncertainty in various countries. It's true that extreme price fluctuations make Bitcoin an asset that can't be considered completely safe. The risk that governments could suddenly ban or restrict Bitcoin's use is also a real factor that could potentially depress the price. However, on the other hand, Bitcoin offers unique characteristics that are difficult to find in other assets, such as decentralization and programmed scarcity. Therefore, Bitcoin can be seen as an asset with a high risk-reward profile: the potential for large returns, but accompanied by significant uncertainty. The best approach is not to view it as an absolute "safe haven," but as one part of a balanced and carefully monitored portfolio.

The sharp rise in Bitcoin prices since Trump's tariff announcement demonstrates how the financial world is transforming. On the one hand, this is a natural reaction of markets seeking alternatives amid economic uncertainty. On the other, it also reflects a deeper shift: people are beginning to question their reliance on traditional financial systems, which are vulnerable to political volatility and trade conflicts. Bitcoin, with its decentralized nature and limited supply, is beginning to be seen as an asset that offers protection from global uncertainty, similar to the role of gold in the past. As more institutions embrace it, it becomes increasingly clear that we are entering a new era where the definition of "safe haven" is no longer limited to precious metals, but can also take the form of digital codes secured by blockchain networks. This is not simply about price fluctuations, but about how humanity is shifting the paradigm of value in the technological age.

In fact, comparing or attempting to measure the total production of Bitcoin (BTC) with metals like gold, silver, or other commodities is not without reason. There is both a philosophical and economic context behind this approach. Precious metals have served as benchmarks of value for thousands of years due to their scarcity, limited production, and global acceptance as a store of value. Bitcoin, with its maximum quantity of 21 million units and its increasingly difficult mining process, is often considered "digital gold." Therefore, when someone suggests comparing the number of BTC in circulation to the production of other metals, it is usually done to assess the scale of scarcity, potential value, and long-term economic impact. While this comparison may seem strange at first, it can provide new insights into how the modern monetary system may be shifting from physical assets to digital ones. I understand your confusion, as comparing something virtual to something tangible seems odd, but that's precisely where the interesting discussion lies.