It's not surprising that post-00s view it this way. Their growth period coincided exactly with the process of BTC transforming from a geek toy into an institutional game—Tesla's entry in 2021, the approval of the spot ETF by BlackRock. This thing is no longer the "digital gold" of the forums back then.

The current script does seem a bit similar: early entrants have achieved financial freedom, while latercomers either buy at high prices or wait for the next decade. Isn't this the same narrative as real estate? Your dad bought a house in Shenzhen in 2000 that has increased 50 times; now if you buy, you can only wait for demolition. Moutai is the same—cost a few yuan per share in the 90s, now 2000 yuan. What can you do after buying? Wait for it to rise to 4000?

But BTC's liquidity and global nature are incomparable to real estate and Moutai. Selling your Shenzhen house might take half a year, but BTC transfers are completed in three seconds.

Post-00s see it as an "old money asset" mainly because of the shift in discourse power. Now, the influencers shouting about it are suited analysts and KOLs with gold watches, not the meme-sharing folks on Reddit from back then. The atmosphere has changed, so naturally, it’s not as sexy anymore.

However, from another perspective, being classified as an "old money asset" isn't necessarily a bad thing—at least it indicates it won't go to zero, right? Truly old money assets are those that survive cycles. Post-00s now think it's old, but when they turn 30 and realize that holding some BTC can hedge against fiat devaluation, they might find it really appealing.

Ultimately, this is a matter of intergenerational perception. Every generation has its own "new frontier": the 70s invested in stocks, the 80s bought houses, the 90s went all-in on crypto, and the post-00s might see AI Agents or some yet-to-emerge technology as their opportunity.