Image credit: Unsplash
Crypto analyst Michaël van de Poppe says Bitcoin may prove harder for artificial intelligence to disrupt than many traditional assets because its scarcity cannot be automated.
Van de Poppe highlighted comments from veteran macro strategist Jordi Visser, who argued that AI could compress the value of assets built on labor, expertise or information advantages. In the May 19 conversation, Visser said AI would “disrupt all wealthy people,” but would not “destroy” Bitcoin.
Visser Says AI Cannot Change Bitcoin’s Fixed Supply
Visser’s argument is that AI can weaken moats in software, services, data advantages and knowledge work by making them easier to replicate. Bitcoin is different, he argues, because its supply is fixed and not tied to a company, workforce, government or national monetary system.
In his own writing, Visser has described Bitcoin as “the purest AI trade,” saying AI-driven disruption could make decentralized, fixed-supply assets more relevant. He said AI would not change Bitcoin and argued that belief in Bitcoin’s narrative may be more durable than traditional fundamentals.
Van De Poppe Focuses on Belief Over Cash Flow
Van de Poppe’s takeaway is about belief, not earnings. Bitcoin does not generate cash flow, dividends or productivity gains, which critics often describe as a weakness. But in an AI-heavy economy, that same feature could make Bitcoin stand apart from assets whose value depends on execution, information advantages or business models that AI can challenge.
Visser put it in narrative terms, saying, “Belief is harder than fundamentals. Fundamentals come and go. Belief systems don’t come and go.” That makes the Bitcoin case less about traditional valuation and more about fixed supply, monetary scarcity and collective conviction.
AI Scarcity Thesis Still Faces Investor Test
The argument remains contested because Bitcoin still has to compete for investor capital against growth stocks, liquid technology companies and other assets with earnings power. Visser himself has previously argued that Bitcoin lacked a strong enough fundamental narrative to compete for institutional capital when investors could still earn attractive returns in the largest liquid companies.
That tension remains important. Bitcoin may appeal as a scarcity asset in a world of AI abundance, but that does not guarantee outperformance. For now, the thesis is a market argument rather than proof that Bitcoin will benefit from AI disruption. The test is whether investors increasingly treat BTC as scarce digital infrastructure whose core supply cannot be copied by software.
