Cathie Wood is doubling down on her long-held view that Bitcoin’s design gives it a structural advantage over gold as a scarce asset.
In a new 2026 outlook from ARK Invest, Wood argues that scarcity is not simply about limited availability, but about whether supply can respond to price — and on that front, Bitcoin stands apart.
Key takeaways:
Cathie Wood says Bitcoin’s fixed issuance schedule makes it structurally more scarce than gold.
Gold supply can expand in response to higher prices, while Bitcoin supply cannot.
Bitcoin has delivered stronger long-term returns with slower supply growth.
Low correlation with traditional assets strengthens Bitcoin’s diversification appeal.
Scarcity, supply, and long-term positioning
According to Ark’s analysis, gold and Bitcoin have both produced meaningful long-term gains, but under fundamentally different supply mechanics. Gold prices rose roughly 166% over the period studied, alongside an annualized global supply increase of about 1.8%. Bitcoin, by contrast, climbed more than 360% while its supply growth averaged closer to 1.3%.
Wood emphasizes that this difference becomes critical during periods of rising prices. Higher gold prices incentivize miners to increase exploration and production, gradually expanding supply. Bitcoin’s issuance, however, is hard-coded and declines over time through scheduled halving events. As a result, Bitcoin’s annual supply growth is expected to fall below 1% and eventually approach 0.4% later this decade.
That dynamic underpins Wood’s continued long-term optimism. While she has moderated her most aggressive price forecasts — trimming her projection from $1.5 million to roughly $1.2 million by 2030 — she maintains that Bitcoin’s predictable scarcity remains unmatched by any physical commodity.
Diversification benefits and the gold comparison
Beyond scarcity, Wood frames Bitcoin as a powerful diversification tool. Ark’s data shows Bitcoin maintaining low correlation with gold and bonds, giving it an unusually strong risk-adjusted profile for asset allocators seeking higher returns per unit of risk. In Wood’s view, this places Bitcoin in a unique position within multi-asset portfolios.
Still, Bitcoin’s role as “digital gold” was challenged in 2025, when gold significantly outperformed amid heightened macro uncertainty. Gold’s long-standing reputation, physical nature, and historical reliability continue to appeal to conservative investors, particularly during periods of stress.
Supporters of Bitcoin argue that short-term underperformance should not overshadow its longer-term trajectory. After a strong rally in 2024, a consolidation phase in 2025 was widely expected. While gold offers stability, Bitcoin offers asymmetric upside — a tradeoff that remains central to its appeal.
For Wood, the takeaway is not a binary choice between assets, but a structural argument. Bitcoin’s fixed supply, declining issuance, and low correlation make it increasingly difficult for long-term investors to dismiss, even as gold retains its role as a traditional hedge.
