Despite Bitcoin’s growing reputation as a transformative force in global finance, Ray Dalio remains unconvinced that it can play a meaningful role at the level of central banks.
In a podcast conversation with Nithin Kamath, Dalio laid out why he believes Bitcoin’s structural characteristics ultimately limit its appeal to monetary authorities.
Rather than questioning Bitcoin’s popularity or price potential, Dalio focused on whether it can function as a dependable reserve asset — and his answer was clear: he doesn’t think it can.
Key takeaways
Ray Dalio argues Bitcoin is unlikely to be adopted by central banks.
Transparency and traceability of Bitcoin transactions are seen as major drawbacks.
Dalio believes governments can monitor and potentially interfere with BTC activity.
Gold remains, in his view, the only asset resistant to control and manipulation.
Bitcoin may work as an investment asset, but not as a sovereign reserve.
Why Central Banks Are Unlikely to Embrace Bitcoin
Dalio argued that while Bitcoin is widely perceived as a form of money and a store of value, that perception alone is not enough for central banks. In his view, reserve assets must be resilient to oversight, interference, and systemic vulnerabilities — areas where he believes Bitcoin falls short.
One of his core concerns is transparency. Bitcoin’s public ledger allows transactions to be tracked, monitored, and potentially restricted. According to Dalio, this feature makes Bitcoin fundamentally different from assets that central banks historically trust, because governments can observe flows and intervene when necessary.
From that perspective, Bitcoin lacks what Dalio describes as “flow” — the flexibility and neutrality required for an asset to operate at the heart of a global monetary system without friction or political influence.
Gold Still Stands Alone in Dalio’s Framework
When discussing what does meet that standard, Dalio returned to a familiar conclusion: gold. He described gold as the only asset that has consistently resisted control, manipulation, or technological disruption across history.
In contrast, Dalio sees Bitcoin as exposed to risks that gold does not share. These include potential protocol vulnerabilities, regulatory pressure, and the possibility — however remote — of technological compromise. While Bitcoin’s fixed supply is often cited as a strength, Dalio suggested that scarcity alone does not guarantee durability as a reserve asset.
In his framework, gold’s physical nature and independence from digital systems give it an edge that Bitcoin cannot replicate.
Skepticism Without Dismissal
Notably, Dalio did not dismiss Bitcoin outright as worthless or irrelevant. Instead, his critique focused narrowly on its suitability for central bank adoption. He acknowledged Bitcoin’s role as an alternative asset and store of value for private investors, but drew a clear line between market enthusiasm and institutional trust at the sovereign level.
That distinction reflects Dalio’s broader philosophy: assets that thrive in portfolios do not automatically qualify as foundations of monetary systems.
As debates around digital money continue to intensify, Dalio’s comments serve as a reminder that Bitcoin’s biggest challenge may not be adoption by individuals or funds — but convincing the institutions that sit at the core of global finance.
