Bloomberg’s senior ETF analyst Eric Balchunas has clearly assessed the recent resurgence of "Bitcoin is tulip mania" analogies, arguing that the comparison is both historically and financially inaccurate.
Historical and Financial Discrepancies
Balchunas explained that the tulip craze was a speculation that lasted only three years and collapsed abruptly. In contrast, Bitcoin has demonstrated resilience over the past 17 years, recovering from numerous sharp declines and reaching new highs. "Bitcoin has been hit hard six or seven times, but it has always bounced back," the analyst stated. "This resilience alone is enough to invalidate the tulip metaphor."
The analyst highlighted Bitcoin's long-term performance, noting that it remains up over 250% over the past three years and 122% last year. Balchunas suggested that the motivation behind some of these comparisons stems from an antipathy towards the asset itself: "Some people hate this asset and want to anger those who love it. That's not going to change."
Understanding Price Corrections
Regarding the price correction observed in 2025, Balchunas described it as a normal cooling-off period. He emphasized that the reversal of last year's extreme surge should not be overanalyzed. "Assets cool down from time to time," he commented. "Even stocks do. People overanalyze this."
The "Non-Productive Asset" Argument
Balchunas also addressed the "non-productive asset" argument that often leads to Bitcoin being likened to the tulip craze. He pointed out that many recognized assets, such as gold, Picasso paintings, and rare stamps, are also non-productive. "Are we going to compare these assets to tulips? Bitcoin is a completely different asset," he asserted.
According to the analyst, tulip mania was a singular bubble characterized by "excessive enthusiasm and a sudden crash." Bitcoin, however, is a long-lived, cyclical, and increasingly institutionalized asset class that does not warrant such a comparison.