What Assets Hold Value in a Currency Reset and Why.

Well, hello and welcome to another Cats

& Co video. Now, following the last

video where I commented on what a

currency reset might look like in

practice, people have increasingly been

asking me how assets like gold, Bitcoin,

cash, property, and pensions might fare

and in particular, which would prove

most resilient. Now, there are good

reasons why gold and Bitcoin usually

come up first. People are looking for

something that survives if the monetary

system itself changes. Because if there

is a reset coming, and I do think at

some point there will be, then this

really isn't just about returns anymore.

It's about what needs permission and

what doesn't. So, let's start with gold.

Physical gold that you actually possess

sits in a very particular category. It

doesn't rely on banks. It doesn't rely

on networks. It doesn't need conversion.

It doesn't sit on anybody else's balance

sheet. And that is why gold keeps

reappearing at moments of monetary

change. Not because it's exciting, but

because it's boring and difficult to

interfere with. Now, yes, I know gold

has been restricted uh for example in

the United States in the 1930s, but I do

think that today that would be

politically explosive. Gold works

because it bridges the system. Now,

Bitcoin solves a similar problem, but in

a different way. It's self-custodied,

easily stored, easily transferred, and

it is highly funible. Technically, it is

very resilient. Politically, I do think

it's a little more fragile. So, while

it's gaining adoption, it is still

relatively new and governments are still

working out how to deal with it, which

does create a degree of regulatory risk.

Now, Bitcoin is kind of a global

technology living inside national

politics. There's a practical difference

between the two. Gold is excellent at

storing value and is difficult to track,

but it's heavy, physical, and difficult

to move quietly across borders. Now,

Bitcoin, by contrast, is almost

frictionless to move. However, it is

trackable and that makes it risky in

jurisdictions that prohibit it, but

extremely useful for people who are

prepared to move themselves across

borders and political systems to protect

their own freedoms. So, it's not all

about which is better. It's about what

problem you're actually trying to solve.

Both sit outside the traditional

monetary system and are resilient in

different ways. Now contrast that with

cash. In a world moving towards central

bank digital currencies, paper cash

risks becoming instantly defunct. Cash

only works inside a cash system. Once a

mandatory digital currency exists, then

the cash doesn't need to be confiscated

to become irrelevant. So cash is not

resilient. Real estate I think sits

somewhere in between. Property is

visible,

immobile and easy to tax. But having

somewhere to live clearly matters.

Shelter itself has real utility. And

more rural and self-sufficient property

tends to have an even stronger

resilience profile. And that's why we

see planners, people thinking a few

moves ahead, gravitating toward property

with some degree of independence. Not

because they necessarily expect

collapse, although some of them do, but

because utility matters more than

optimization in uncertain times. And

this is also where jurisdiction starts

to matter. Property doesn't exist in a

vacuum. Islands in particular do tend to

attract people during periods of

uncertainty. Not because the islands are

perfect, but because smaller

jurisdictions often have clearer rules,

kind of a tighter social contract and

more predictable responses under stress.

So, is property resilient? Well,

partially. It doesn't disappear in a

reset, but it is immovable and taxable,

which means it sits inside the system.

It survives because it's useful, not

because it's sovereign. Owning a home

gives stability, but it doesn't give

control over the rules. Now, stocks and

shares, they sit fully inside the system

because they're priced in most likely

legacy currency and you need brokers,

exchanges, settlement layers, and

eventually CBDC rails. They don't opt

you out of anything. In one sense, they

opt you in more deeply. That doesn't

make them bad, but it does mean that

they will be reshaped however the new

system requires. And this is where the

reset logic really comes together. I

don't think the old money simply gets

wiped out. But I don't think it will be

honored in full either. I think old

assets, old promises, pension funds,

legacy savings and so on get converted

at the same time a new currency system

is introduced but in layers. And this is

where the universal basic income or

something very close to it may also come

into the equation. The delayed

conversion of legacy assets potentially

as I say including pensions and large

bank balances, investment accounts could

form the basis of some sort of UBI style

income flaw. That flaw will plate the

masses while legacy claims will be

capped and tapered. So smaller pensions

will be largely protected. Larger ones

will be partially honored and the very

largest quietly written down. A covert

confiscation reframed as sustainability

and fairness. And that's the real fault

line. If your wealth exists only as

legacy assets as promises inside the

system, then the system will decide how

and whether they are converted. Assets

that don't need conversion, gold, bearer

assets, and self-custodied assets like

Bitcoin, don't face that negotiation at

all. So for people with little capital,

the reset will feel like support. For

people with savings, it will feel like

expropriation.

Slow, procedural, but entirely legal. So

this is why I think we're seeing people

rebalancing their assets now while they

still have choice and agency to do so.

In theory, all assets are equal, but in

a reset, some assets are very clearly

more equal than others.

Well, I hope you found that interesting.

If you did, please like and subscribe.

I'd also be very interested to hear your

comments in the comment section below.

So, uh, until next time, thank you very

much.