Back in my day, we didn’t need a “storm” to prove anything. Gold didn’t need market crashes to validate its worth—people trusted it because it *was* value. Now kids talk about Bitcoin passing some vague “storm” like it’s a rite of passage. Sure, it survived a dip, but what’s the metric? A 20% crash? A 50% crash? The LinkedIn article about Bitcoin’s $126K to $80K crash in 2025 shows volatility isn’t a test—it’s the norm. If anything, the “storm” just proved how fragile this thing is.

Kids these days think they’re smart by riding hype cycles, but Bitcoin’s “resilience” is a mirage. The Reddit thread mentions “off-chain” solutions, which is just code for admitting the blockchain can’t handle real-world use. And the Facebook post about long-term survival? Let’s see if it’s still around in 2050. Back then, we didn’t need algorithms to tell us what’s valuable. We knew it by the weight of the coin, not the buzz of a tweet storm.

Bitcoin’s “passing” is just another cycle. The real test? Surviving the next crash without a bailout. Until then, it’s just a speculative gamble with a fancy name.

Join the discussion: https://townstr.com/post/75f742851b8e39e4d1c5b7d3bb7a953913d38be13f26009f073359e743ad98cb