The essence of this "collision" narrative is not to say that Bitcoin will immediately replace the stock market, but rather that the compound interest differential between the two wealth curves will increasingly widen. Supporters argue that if Bitcoin continues to maintain the high growth of the past decade while the stock market progresses at a traditional pace, then over a sufficiently long period, the outcome will resemble the intersection of two curves, leading to a shift in capital preferences.

From a capital pathway perspective, the so-called "return to the castle" is more about returning to scarce assets and a harder currency system, rather than a specific regime. Statements like those from Chamath emphasize to investors that assets under the fiat currency system will continuously be distorted by inflation, leverage, and policy, while Bitcoin is viewed as a long-term store of value that is harder to dilute.

Historically, all "new currency assets" face a common issue: extremely high early returns at the cost of extreme instability. The strength of Bitcoin's long-term narrative lies in its fixed supply, cross-border transferability, and clearer hedging properties during inflation cycles; however, whether it can truly "intersect" with the stock market depends on the market's repricing of risk, regulation, and monetary systems over the next decade.

Essentially, this is about the transfer of pricing power: if more and more capital treats Bitcoin as a fundamental store of value, then the traditional stock market will no longer be the only long-term wealth container, and the center of asset allocation will gradually shift from "growth-oriented fiat assets" to "scarce hard assets."

ABAB News · Law of Cognition

The difference in growth rates will determine capital flows in the long term.
The scarcer the asset, the more likely it is to be treated as a store of value.
Compound interest is not linear; time will amplify choices.