Ray Dalio: Bitcoin Inferior to Gold, Cites Central Bank Concerns

Ray Dalio’s core critique of Bitcoin centers on its inherent transparency, which he views as a critical vulnerability. He specifically pointed to Bitcoin’s public transaction ledger, which pseudonymously tracks wallet addresses and transactions. “Transactions could all be followed in Bitcoin. One can monitor what the transactions are. Governments can monitor what the transactions are. And governments can interfere with those transactions,” Dalio stated in his interview with Zerodha co-founder Nikhil Kamath. This, he argues, stands in stark contrast to gold, which he described as “the only asset that you can have that they can’t mess with and control.”

This perceived flaw directly impacts Bitcoin’s appeal to large institutions, particularly central banks. Dalio believes Bitcoin is “unlikely to be significantly held by central banks” due to these problems. This skepticism persists despite recent exploratory moves, such as the Czech National Bank’s purchase of Bitcoin last month. However, that transaction was part of a separate $1 million test portfolio of digital assets, explicitly not included in the bank’s official reserves, underscoring the cautious and limited nature of institutional experimentation.

Beyond transparency, Dalio expressed concerns about Bitcoin’s fundamental security, drawing an analogy to synthetic diamonds. “Well, in terms of Bitcoin being cracked, broken, all sorts of things, and controlled, it has those issues,” he said. This viewpoint challenges the narrative of Bitcoin as the ultimate bearer asset. Proponents argue that Bitcoin enables unparalleled financial sovereignty, allowing users to access wealth anywhere with a 12-word security phrase. Yet, governments have found indirect avenues for control, compelling crypto exchanges and companies to implement Know-Your-Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) rules, freeze accounts, and block transactions linked to sanctioned entities.

The historical track records of both assets are central to the debate. Bitcoin has maintained an operational uptime of over 99.98% for more than 16 years, with 100% reliability since 2013 and no successful hacks of its core protocol. Gold’s legacy is measured in millennia, having served as a store of value and inflation hedge for over 6,000 years with zero concerns about technological obsolescence from quantum computing. However, both face significant criticisms: Bitcoin for its extensive energy consumption and price volatility; gold for environmental damage from mining, portability issues, and risks of theft and counterfeiting.

Dalio’s framing of gold as immune to control presents a nuanced historical picture. The US government’s actions demonstrate that no store of value is entirely beyond state reach. In 1933, Executive Order 6102 mandated the surrender of gold coins, bullion, and certificates to the Federal Reserve. Similarly, both gold and Bitcoin have been seized from criminal operations, with a notable $15 billion Bitcoin haul reported in 2025. These precedents underscore that while the mechanisms differ—legal mandate for gold, targeting custody points for Bitcoin—governments retain powerful tools for intervention.

Ultimately, Dalio’s position is one of comparative preference within a bearish outlook on traditional currencies. “I’m bearish on fiat currencies. So when I look at the world, I’m just trying to say, ‘What do I hold?'” he explained. His answer is a portfolio that includes “a little bit of Bitcoin” but is anchored by gold, which he finds “more attractive.” This stance captures the central tension in the modern search for a safe-haven asset: balancing the digital innovation and portability of Bitcoin against the ancient, physically opaque, and politically tested resilience of gold.