It matters because one is a physical object with static properties and the other is a digital abstraction with characteristics that can change arbitrarily based on network consensus. One is fundamentally a thing that can be looked at and held, the other isn't even a thing you can know you have without consulting a quorum of nodes about the status of the ledger (for all you know, you don't actually own any tokens because an attacker has stolen them)
But what does that matter in a world where people spend numbers on a bank account, never questioning if the money is actually there or not? I fear you are putting too much emphasis on physical things, as if the quality of being "able to be touched" somehow matters in the modern world.
But are you really hedging against the collpase of _everything_ so that we are at a completely primative level. Or do we mean collapse as in another collapse of the world economy?
If you mean the former, then yes, gold is a good hedge. But if you mean the latter, then I would argue Bitcoin beats gold 100x.
> But are you really hedging against the collpase of _everything_ so that we are at a completely primative level. Or do we mean collapse as in another collapse of the world economy?
The world economy has never collapsed, and if it did, it would be equivalent to the first option.
If you mean a short-term market downturn like the one that occurred with the ~2009 financial crisis, why would I even bother to hedge against that—and, if I did, why would I use an asset with high volatility to hedge against short-term market movement?
