Now that we’ve explored why fiat money is broken and why Bitcoin is sound money, the next question is inevitable: how does Bitcoin compare to the two dominant forms of money that came before it — fiat and gold? The answer lies not only in their properties but also in the dynamics of how adoption spreads, from individuals to institutions and eventually to nations. This is where game theory comes into play.

Gold has historically been humanity’s closest approximation of sound money. Its scarcity, durability, and universal recognition made it the backbone of civilizations for thousands of years. Yet gold’s limitations held it back in the modern world. It is heavy, difficult to transport, and costly to verify. These weaknesses led to its centralization in banks and vaults, which in turn allowed governments to seize and manipulate it. Gold may be scarce, but its reliance on intermediaries made it vulnerable. That vulnerability paved the way for the rise of fiat.

Fiat money, untethered from gold, solved some of these practical problems. It is lightweight, easy to transact with, and universally accepted by government decree. But fiat introduced a new weakness: unlimited supply. Central banks can print at will, creating inflation and distorting incentives. What fiat gained in convenience, it lost in integrity. The trade-off has left the world with a system that is efficient on the surface but corrosive underneath.

Bitcoin enters this contest as a new hybrid. It has gold’s scarcity but with digital portability, divisibility, and verifiability. Unlike fiat, its supply cannot be inflated, and unlike gold, it does not need intermediaries to store or transfer. It is a self-sovereign form of money that travels at the speed of the internet. In a head-to-head comparison, Bitcoin represents a strict improvement over both gold and fiat.

But the battle for monetary dominance is not won by properties alone. It is shaped by game theory — the study of how decisions made by individuals, companies, and nations influence one another. At first, Bitcoin adoption began with individuals: cypherpunks, technologists, and early investors who recognized its potential. As Bitcoin survived and grew, it attracted attention from traders, then from everyday savers looking for protection from inflation. Each new wave of adoption made the next wave more likely.

We are now in the stage where institutions are entering. Companies like MicroStrategy and Metaplanet have shifted their corporate treasuries into Bitcoin, treating it as superior to holding cash. In the financial sector, Bitcoin ETFs have been launched, allowing pension funds, family offices, and retail investors to gain exposure without holding the asset directly. Each institutional step signals to the market that Bitcoin is not only legitimate but also increasingly necessary as a hedge against fiat debasement.

Game theory ensures that once some players adopt, others are pressured to follow. If one company protects its balance sheet with Bitcoin and gains a long-term advantage, competitors will feel compelled to consider the same. If one nation, like El Salvador, makes Bitcoin legal tender and benefits from investment and tourism, other nations may explore similar strategies. The decision not to adopt begins to carry its own risks, creating a domino effect.

Meanwhile, gold remains stuck. Its physical nature limits innovation, and its role in the global economy has diminished with each decade of fiat dominance. Fiat still reigns supreme today, but its flaws are becoming more visible: ballooning debts, rising inflation, and loss of trust in central banks. In this environment, Bitcoin’s properties shine more brightly, and its adoption accelerates.

This is the essence of Bitcoin’s global game theory. It is not about convincing everyone all at once. It is about the logic of incentives. One individual protecting savings encourages another. One company protecting its balance sheet pressures competitors. One nation hedging against dollar dependence pressures its neighbors. Over time, the rational choice becomes clearer: adopt Bitcoin or risk being left behind.

In this contest of money, fiat is fragile, gold is outdated, and Bitcoin is antifragile. Each shock, each crisis, each act of overreach by central banks only strengthens the case for Bitcoin. Its adoption path is uneven, but the direction is unmistakable. From individuals to institutions to nations, the logic of game theory drives a steady march toward sound money. And in that march, Bitcoin stands not as an alternative but as the inevitable successor to both fiat and gold.