It only make sense to compare digital (Bitcoin) with digital (gold-backed Stablecoin)
I disagree. Both hold value which is why it makes sense comparing their values regardless of whether they are physical or digital in nature.
Let's make an example.
If you compare which one gets moves faster, it doesn't make any sense to compare a digital entity with a physical entity.
Digital moves clearly faster than a piece of rock.
So, does it mean that Bitcoin can get exchanged faster than gold?
No
How about putting gold on the blockchain?
Let's compare Bitcoin with a gold-backed stablecoin.
Which one moves faster?
That's a question which makes sense
DivisibilityBitcoin
Bitcoin is divisible out to 8 decimal places, which opens up the possibility for micropayments where txs can be completed for fractions of a cent.
Gold
While gold can be divided into smaller amounts, it becomes impractical to use small specks of gold in commerce.
So, Bitcoin wins?
Of course it wins, because you consider gold only in physical form.
How about putting gold on the blockchain?
Who is faster, Peter in his car or Paul with his bicycle?
The question doesn't make any sense.
Put Paul in a car, then it makes sense.
It is unfair to compare the
portability of a piece of rock with the portability of a digital currency.
If you can digitalise the ownership title to that gold, it is unfair (to gold).
As soon as you put that title on the blockchain, that gold can get bought and sold digitally, then comparing the portability of gold with the portability of Bitcoin makes sense
"It can be moved and transacted in small amounts but becomes impractical when dealing with larger values because of its weight."
So, Bitcoins is more portable than gold?
No
Bitcoin is only more portable than physical gold.
As soon as we consider gold-backed stablecoins, gold is as much portable as Bitcoin.
If I own 3 tons of gold as gold-backed stablecoins, who cares about the weight
When you compare two things, you have to consider them under the same circumstances