Silver Soars, Has the Bitcoin "Bible" Prophecy Failed?

Original Author: David, TechFlow

In 2020, after reading a book, MicroStrategy founder Michael Saylor decided to buy $425 million worth of Bitcoin.

That book is called "The Bitcoin Standard". Published in 2018, it has been translated into 39 languages, sold over a million copies, and is revered by Bitcoin maximalists as their "bible."

The author, Saifedean Ammous, holds a Ph.D. in economics from Columbia University, and his core argument is singular:

Bitcoin is a "harder" form of money than gold.

Furthermore, on the book's promotional page, Michael Saylor's original endorsement reads:

"This book is a work of genius. After reading it, I decided to buy $425 million in Bitcoin. It has had the greatest impact on MicroStrategy's thinking, leading us to shift our balance sheet to a Bitcoin standard."

However, there is one chapter in this book that is not about Bitcoin. It explains why silver can never become hard money.

Eight years later, silver has just surged to a historic high of $117 per ounce. The investment frenzy in precious metals continues, with even Hyperliquid and several CEXs beginning to list precious metals contract trading in various forms.

At times like these, there are always those who play the role of whistleblower or turncoat to warn of risks, especially in an environment where everything is rising except Bitcoin.

For instance, a widely circulated post on Crypto Twitter today cited a screenshot from page 23 of this book, with a highlighted paragraph stating:

Every silver bubble has burst, and the next one will be no exception.

A History of Silver Speculation

Before rushing to criticize, let's examine what this core argument actually is.

The core argument in the book is actually called the stock-to-flow ratio. Bitcoin OGs have probably heard of this theory.

In plain language, for something to become "hard money," the key is how difficult it is to increase its production.

Gold is hard to mine. The global above-ground gold stock is about 200,000 tons, with annual new production under 3,500 tons. Even if the gold price doubles, miners can't suddenly extract twice as much gold. This is called "supply inelasticity."

Bitcoin is even more extreme. Its total supply is capped at 21 million coins, halving every four years, and no one can change the code. This is algorithmically engineered scarcity.

What about silver?

The gist of that highlighted passage in the book is: Silver bubbles have burst before and will burst again. Because once significant capital flows into silver, miners can easily increase supply, driving the price down and evaporating the wealth of savers.

The author also gives an example: the Hunt brothers.

In the late 1970s, Texas oil tycoons the Hunt brothers decided to hoard silver in an attempt to corner the market. They bought billions of dollars worth of silver and futures contracts, driving the price from $6 to $50, setting a then-historic high for silver.

And then? Miners flooded the market with silver, exchanges raised margin requirements, and the silver price crashed. The Hunt brothers lost over $1 billion and ultimately went bankrupt.

Therefore, the author's conclusion is:

Silver's supply elasticity is too high, destined never to be a store of value. Every time someone tries to hoard it as "hard money," the market teaches them a lesson by increasing production.

When this logic was written in 2018, silver was $15 per ounce. Nobody really cared.

Is This Silver Cycle Different?

For the above logic about silver to hold true, there's a prerequisite: when the silver price rises, supply can keep up.

However, the data from the past 25 years tells a different story.

Global silver mine production peaked in 2016 at approximately 900 million ounces. By 2025, this figure had dropped to 835 million ounces. The price increased sevenfold, yet production shrank by 7%.

Why doesn't the "price rise leads to increased production" logic work anymore?

One structural reason is that about 75% of silver is produced as a by-product of mining copper, zinc, and lead. Miners' production decisions depend on the prices of these base metals, not on silver. Even if the silver price doubles, if copper prices don't rise, no new mines will open.

Another reason might be time. The cycle from exploration to production for a new mine project is 8 to 12 years. Even if work started immediately, no new supply would be seen before 2030.

The result is a supply deficit for five consecutive years. According to Silver Institute data, from 2021 to 2025, the cumulative global silver deficit is close to 820 million ounces, almost equivalent to a full year of global mine production.

Simultaneously, silver inventories are also bottoming out. The London Bullion Market Association's deliverable silver inventory has dropped to only 155 million ounces. The silver lease rate has skyrocketed from a normal year's 0.3%-0.5% to 8%, meaning someone is willing to pay an 8% annualized cost just to secure physical delivery.

There's also a new variable. Starting January 1, 2026, China implemented export restrictions on refined silver, with only state-owned large factories with an annual production capacity exceeding 80 tons eligible for export licenses. Small and medium-sized exporters are directly shut out.

In the Hunt brothers' era, miners and holders could crash the market by increasing production and selling.

This time, the supply side might not have enough ammunition.

Both Speculation and Essential Demand

When the Hunt brothers hoarded silver, it was a monetary speculation. Buyers thought: the price will rise, hoard it and wait to sell.

The driving force behind silver's rise in 2025 is completely different.

First, look at some data. According to the World Silver Survey 2025 report, industrial demand for silver reached a record high of 680.5 million ounces in 2024. This figure accounts for over 60% of total global demand.

What is industrial demand buying?

Photovoltaics (PV). Every solar panel requires silver paste for its conductive layer. The International Energy Agency predicts global PV installed capacity will quadruple by 2030. The PV industry is already the single largest industrial buyer of silver.

Electric Vehicles (EVs). A traditional internal combustion engine vehicle uses about 15-28 grams of silver. An electric vehicle uses 25-50 grams, with high-end models using even more. Battery management systems, motor controllers, charging ports—silver is needed everywhere.

AI and Data Centers. Servers, chip packaging, high-frequency connectors—silver's conductivity and thermal properties are irreplaceable. This demand began accelerating in 2024, with the Silver Institute specifically listing "AI-related applications" in its report.

In 2025, the U.S. Department of the Interior added silver to its "Critical Minerals" list. The last time this list was updated, lithium and rare earths were added.

Of course, persistently high silver prices will lead to "silver thrifting," such as some PV manufacturers already reducing the amount of silver paste per panel. However, the Silver Institute's forecast is that, even considering thrifting, industrial demand will remain near record levels for the next 1-2 years.

This is essentially inelastic demand, a variable Saifedean might not have foreseen when writing "The Bitcoin Standard."

A Book Can Also Provide Psychological Comfort

The "digital gold" narrative for Bitcoin has been largely muted recently in the face of actual gold and silver.

The market has dubbed this year the "Debasement Trade": a weakening dollar, rising inflation expectations, geopolitical tensions, with capital flowing into hard assets for safety. But this wave of safe-haven capital chose gold and silver, not Bitcoin.

For Bitcoin maximalists, this requires an explanation.

Thus, the aforementioned book becomes a source of classical citation for answers and position defense: silver is rising now because it's a bubble; wait for it to crash, and then you'll know who was right.

This resembles a narrative self-rescue.

When the asset you hold underperforms the market for an entire year, you need a framework to explain "why I'm still right."

Short-term price doesn't matter; long-term logic does. Silver's logic is flawed; Bitcoin's logic is sound; therefore, Bitcoin must outperform—it's just a matter of time.

Is this logic self-consistent? Yes. Can it be falsified? Difficult.

Because you can always say, "not enough time has passed."

The problem is, the real world doesn't wait. Brothers holding Bitcoin and altcoins, still steadfast in the crypto space, are genuinely anxious.

Bitcoin theory written eight years ago cannot automatically cover the reality of not rising eight years later.

Silver is still on a tear, and we sincerely wish Bitcoin good luck.