The history of governments confiscating currency four times: why censorship-resistant money like Bitcoin matters and how to compare Bitcoin, stocks, bonds, and commodities?

Understanding the history of governments confiscating currency, freezing bank accounts, restricting gold ownership, or imposing capital controls is not to create panic, but to remind investors that asset comparison cannot be based only on how much something "rose" in the past. The truly important questions still include: when the financial system is under stress, can an asset still be accessed? can it be transferred across borders? does it rely on a single custodian? can it be simultaneously hit by inflation, interest rates, liquidity, or policy changes? In this framework, Bitcoin, stocks, bonds, and commodities represent four categories with different risk and rights structures.

Starting with the historical view of "currency confiscation" in asset comparison

Historically, under war, financial crisis, foreign-exchange shortages, or fiscal pressure, governments may adopt unconventional measures: limiting gold redemption, requiring residents to sell precious metals, freezing some bank accounts, imposing limits on cross-border capital flows, or resetting old currencies through monetary reform.

The common point of such events is not that "all governments confiscate all assets," but that money and financial assets are often embedded in legal, banking, custody, settlement, and payment systems.

Ledger's article on "4 Times Governments Confiscated Money" emphasizes a core issue: when an asset relies completely on centralized ledgers and intermediaries, the holder's control may be weaker than the account balance itself. Bank deposits, broker accounts, fund units, bond registries, and warehouse warrants all require some institution or legal system to recognize and enforce them. In most cases, this institutional setup improves efficiency and reduces transaction costs, but in extreme environments it can also become a source of access restrictions.

Bitcoin and other censorship-resistant money are discussed because they offer a different rights structure: as long as users correctly hold their private keys and can access the network, they can verify balances, sign transactions, and transfer assets without needing approval from traditional financial intermediaries. This does not mean Bitcoin has no risk, and it does not mean it is naturally suitable for everyone; it only shifts some trust from banks and custodians to cryptography, open-source software, network consensus, and personal operational capability.

Therefore, comparing Bitcoin, stocks, bonds, and commodities cannot be done by roughly categorizing them as merely "risky assets" or "safe-haven assets." A more reasonable method is to place them in a matrix: sources of returns, volatility characteristics, trading and liquidity, cash flow and valuation, inflation and interest-rate sensitivity, correlation, custody, and access method. Each factor affects how the asset can be used in the real world.

Comparison dimensions: first ask what rights the asset provides

The first-level difference across the four asset classes is what exactly the holder owns.

This table shows that assets are not in a simple substitution relationship. Stocks are fundamentally tied to corporate productivity, bonds to contractual cash flow, commodities to real-world supply and demand, and Bitcoin to permissionless digital scarcity and settlement network. They may serve different functions within one portfolio.

If an investor worries about inflation eroding purchasing power, stocks, commodities, and Bitcoin may all be included in the watchlist; if there is concern that recession will push risky assets down, high-quality bonds may receive more attention; if there is concern about capital controls or custody freezes, self-custodied Bitcoin becomes more relevant. But each choice comes with a cost: higher volatility, lower cash flow, more complex operations, or stronger policy dependence.

Returns and volatility: higher potential returns usually come with higher uncertainty

Asset returns come from different mechanisms. Stock long-term returns usually come from business earnings growth, reinvestment, and dividends, while short-term prices are influenced by valuation, interest rates, sentiment, and industry cycles. Bond returns are easier to decompose into coupons, duration, and credit spread, but they can still suffer substantial drawdowns when rates rise quickly or issuer credit deteriorates. Commodity prices are affected by supply-demand, inventories, weather, geopolitical events, transportation, and futures curves, and often appear cyclical. Bitcoin has no traditional cash flow; its price depends more on market repricing of scarcity, network security, adoption level, macro liquidity, and regulatory conditions.

From a volatility perspective, Bitcoin is generally considered a high-volatility asset. It can rise sharply when liquidity is ample, risk appetite improves, and institutional participation increases, and it can fall quickly during leverage liquidations, regulatory shocks, exchange-platform risk, or tighter macro conditions. Stocks are less volatile than most crypto assets but still significant, especially for single names and high-valuation growth stocks. Bonds are not always stable; long-duration bonds are very sensitive to rate changes, and commodities can also swing violently from supply shocks.

A concrete scenario can help explain this: assume an investor divides funds equally into four parts and buys Bitcoin, a global stock index, a long-term sovereign bond fund, and gold. If inflation unexpectedly rises and the central bank hikes rates, long-duration bonds may come under pressure from higher yields, and stock valuations may decline; gold and some commodities may benefit from inflation fears, but if real rates rise at the same time, gold may perform flatly. Bitcoin may weaken under tighter liquidity, or attract demand under a currency-devaluation narrative. In other words, the direction of impact from the same macro event is not fixed for different assets; what matters is how the market had already priced that event and the combination of policy and liquidity.

Liquidity and trading time: being able to sell is not the same as being able to sell at a good price

Liquidity is one of the most underrated dimensions in asset comparisons. When an exchange shows "trading available," that does not mean large amounts can also be executed near quoted prices in a stress environment. True liquidity includes bid-ask spread, market depth, trading hours, settlement speed, redemption rules, and cross-market channels.

The Bitcoin spot market runs almost 24/7, and on-chain transfers do not depend on bank business hours, which gives it an advantage across time zones and holiday periods. But actual trading may still rely on exchanges, market makers, fiat on/off ramps, and network fees. When markets are volatile, centralized exchanges may experience congestion, risk controls, or withdrawal delays; self-custody users control on-chain assets but still face slippage and network congestion.

Stock markets usually trade during exchange hours, and major indices and blue-chip stocks typically have lower trading costs, but halts, circuit breakers, holidays, and market closures can limit immediate exit. Bond markets, especially corporate bonds, may have less transparency and less continuous quoting than equities, with widened spreads in stress periods. Commodities split into spot, futures, and related funds: futures usually have better liquidity but involve roll costs and margin rules, while physical commodities also require storage, insurance, and transport.

Therefore, "Can I sell?" is only the first question. Follow-up questions are: how far from mid-market price will selling be executed? when will funds arrive? does it require bank or broker approval? are there redemption limits? if capital controls apply in the region, can fiat inflows and outflows still be completed? These questions pull asset comparison from a return table back to real execution.

Cash flow and valuation: some assets can be valued, others rely more on market consensus

A key advantage of stocks and bonds is that relatively mature cash-flow valuation frameworks exist. Stocks can be analyzed using earnings, free cash flow, dividends, growth rates, and valuation multiples; bonds can be analyzed using coupon, yield-to-maturity, duration, credit spread, and default probability. These models do not guarantee accurate forecasts, but they help investors break down which variables drive price.

Bitcoin and most commodities do not generate cash flow. Gold pays no dividend, and oil does not pay interest to holders; Bitcoin returns come from price changes, not endogenous cash flow. Value discussions for it usually revolve around scarcity, network effects, censorship resistance, verifiable supply, settlement demand, holder base, and macro monetary environment. This type of valuation relies more on market consensus and therefore can be more sensitive to price.

This does not mean assets without cash flow have no value. Art, gold, foreign reserves, and basic commodities can all form market prices without cash flow. The key point is that investors cannot directly apply stock-style valuation logic to Bitcoin, nor can they apply Bitcoin's scarcity narrative directly to all commodities. Each asset class needs matching analytical tools.

An executable checklist is as follows:

1. If buying stocks: How does the company make money? Are margins sustainable? Is valuation based on overly high growth assumptions?
2. If buying bonds: How is the issuer's debt-servicing ability? What is the duration? How much price loss would occur if interest rates rise?
3. If buying commodities: Is exposure through spot, futures, or a fund? Is there roll-down or roll loss? Where is the supply-demand cycle in its phase?
4. If buying Bitcoin: Is the holding thesis long-term scarcity, cross-border transfer, self-custody, or short-term speculation? Are private-key controls and exit channels prepared?
5. For all assets: What is the maximum drawdown that can be tolerated under worst-case conditions? Is money needed at a fixed time?

Inflation and interest-rate sensitivity: do not interpret "inflation hedge" as rising in all situations

Inflation and interest rates are core variables connecting multi-asset prices. When inflation rises, purchasing power declines and investors search for assets that can preserve real value. But the response differs substantially by asset.

Stocks may benefit in moderate inflation from corporate pricing power, but if inflation forces central banks to raise rates quickly, valuation can compress, financing costs rise, and demand may slow. Bonds are especially sensitive to inflation and rates: fixed coupons lose real value in high inflation, and rising rates lower existing-bond prices, with stronger impact as duration lengthens. Commodities are often closely linked to inflation shocks, especially when inflation comes from energy, food, or raw-material shortages, but commodity prices may anticipate expectations and still fall when demand weakens.

Bitcoin is often called "hard money" or "digital gold" because issuance rules are transparent, supply caps are clear, and it cannot be arbitrarily printed by a single government. From a monetary perspective, this does indeed provide scarcity different from fiat currencies. But in practice, Bitcoin prices still respond to real rates, USD liquidity, risk appetite, and leverage. High inflation does not automatically lead to Bitcoin gains; if inflation leads to tighter monetary policy, risk assets may face pressure simultaneously.

A more accurate view is: Bitcoin has structural features that resist long-term monetary debasement and censorship risk, but its short- to medium-term price is not a stable inflation hedge. Commodities may more directly reflect certain inflation components, stocks depend on corporate pricing power, and bonds require careful attention to real yields. Clarifying these differences avoids oversimplifying all risks with one phrase like "inflation hedge."

Correlation and diversification: diversification is not buying more names, but separating sources of risk

One goal of multi-asset allocation is to avoid all assets falling together under the same stress scenario. Correlation helps observe whether different asset prices move in the same direction, but correlation is not constant and changes with market conditions. Assets that look diversified in calm periods may fall together during liquidity crises because investors need to sell whatever can be sold to meet margin calls or raise cash.

Stocks and high-risk crypto assets may show high co-movement when risk appetite is the main driver, especially when global liquidity changes are clear. Bonds may provide a buffer against stocks in some recession environments, but in inflation and rate-shock scenarios stocks and bonds may both come under pressure. Gold and industrial commodities have different logic: gold is more influenced by real rates, safe-haven demand, and confidence in fiat money, while industrial metals rely more on manufacturing cycles.

Bitcoin's diversification value is dual in nature. On one hand, it does not represent company cash flow, is not a liability of any one country's central bank, and does not require the traditional banking system for final settlement, giving it distinctiveness at institutional and custody levels. On the other hand, as a publicly traded asset it is affected by global risk appetite, leverage, and liquidity, so it cannot be assumed to rise whenever stocks fall.

To evaluate diversification effect, correlation can be split into three layers: price correlation, fundamental correlation, and access correlation. Price correlation answers "whether they fall together"; fundamental correlation answers "whether they are influenced by the same economic variables"; access correlation answers "whether they can be constrained by the same custody system, banking channel, or judicial order in extreme cases." Traditional portfolios often emphasize the first two, while censorship-resistant assets remind us that the third layer is also important.

Custody and access: legal ownership and actual control are different

Custody is one of the core topics of this article. Stocks, bonds, and most commodity exposures are typically held through brokers, funds, banks, or futures firms. This is convenient, compliant, and often lower-cost, with investor protection systems in place; but holders usually own account-level rights or contract rights rather than direct control of the underlying asset. If an intermediary goes bankrupt, an account is frozen, a court order is enforced, trading is suspended, or cross-border payments are restricted, access can be affected.

Bitcoin's uniqueness is that it can be self-custodied. Users can move assets from an exchange to a wallet address they control, and as long as private keys or seed phrases are safe, they do not need the exchange to continue recognizing their account balance. This model reduces counterparty risk and some censorship risk but shifts operational responsibility to the individual: lost seed phrases, phishing signatures, malware, incorrect address transfers, and multisig misconfiguration can all cause irreversible losses.

Therefore, censorship resistance is not "risk-free," but a "change in risk type." Centralized custody risk is one of institutions, accounts, and policy; self-custody risk is one of private keys, devices, and operations. For ordinary investors, a more realistic approach is not choosing an absolute answer between the two; instead, classify by amount, use case, and ability: small assets for daily trading can be kept on liquid platforms; assets for long-term reserves can use hardware wallets, multisig, or offline backup; before becoming comfortable with operations, do not move all assets at once into addresses you cannot manage.

This also reveals a fundamental difference between Bitcoin and stocks, bonds, and commodities. Stocks and bonds depend on legal enforcement and issuer obligations, and cannot be realistically separated from custody systems; commodities can be physically held but involve high storage and transportation costs for bulk goods. Bitcoin combines global transferability with personal custody, which is why it is repeatedly discussed in debates on "money confiscation."

An asset comparison framework: place four asset classes in one table

Investors can use the following questions for preliminary screening instead of directly asking "which is best."

If the investment goal is long-term purchasing power preservation, a portfolio may need to consider corporate equity, scarce assets, and cash-flow assets together. If the goal is to cope with restricted access to banking systems, Bitcoin's self-custody feature may be more relevant, while still reserving local liquidity for daily needs. If the goal is reducing portfolio volatility, high-volatility Bitcoin cannot simply replace short-duration bonds or cash-like assets. If the goal is hedging energy price increases, energy commodities or related equity exposure may be more direct, though more tied to cycles and policy.

In other words, each asset class solves only part of the problem. Describing Bitcoin as a full substitute for stocks, bonds, or commodities is oversimplified; seeing it only as a speculative price does not capture the institutional differences from its censorship resistance and self-custody. The value of a proper comparison is to know when to prioritize which attribute.

Scope of application: censorship-resistant assets are tools, not a method to guarantee returns

The history of money confiscation and restricted asset access reminds us not to equate account numbers in the financial system with unconditional usable wealth. Bitcoin and other censorship-resistant assets offer another option: preserving and transferring value on a globally open network based on private key control. This option requires greater personal responsibility and also accepts sharp price volatility and regulatory uncertainty.

Stocks, bonds, and commodities do not lose their relevance because Bitcoin exists. Stocks are linked to corporate productivity, bonds provide cash-flow and liability-matching tools, commodities reflect real-world supply-demand and inflation shocks, and Bitcoin offers digital scarcity, self-sovereign custody, and non-permissioned transfer possibilities. The key point of multi-asset comparison is not finding one asset that always wins, but understanding the function each asset serves under different macro, institutional, and personal scenarios.

A more robust approach starts from needs: do you need growth, cash flow, inflation protection, crisis liquidity, or cross-border portability? How much volatility can you tolerate? Do you have self-custody capability? What are the regulatory requirements in your jurisdiction for relevant assets? These questions have no universal answers, and no indicator can guarantee returns. Asset comparison can only help identify risk sources and cannot replace independent research, position sizing, and ongoing review.

References

1. 4 Times Governments Confiscated Money: Why Censorship-Resistant Money Like Bitcoin Matters: https://www.ledger.com/academy/topics/economics-and-regulation/4-times-governments-confiscated-money
2. Executive Order 6102—Requiring Gold Coin, Gold Bullion and Gold Certificates to Be Delivered to the Government: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-6102-requiring-gold-coin-gold-bullion-and-gold-certificates-be-delivered
3. Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
4. SEC Investor Bulletin: Bitcoin and Other Virtual Currency-Related Investments: https://www.sec.gov/investor/alerts/ia_virtualcurrencies.pdf
5. CFTC Customer Advisory: Understand the Risks of Virtual Currency Trading: https://www.cftc.gov/LearnAndProtect/AdvisoriesAndArticles/understand_risks_of_virtual_currency.html
6. OneKey Blog: https://onekey.so/blog

Risk Warning

This article is for educational and informational reference only and does not constitute investment advice, legal advice, tax advice, or any invitation to buy or sell assets. Bitcoin, stocks, bonds, and commodities all involve risk: market prices can fluctuate significantly, and historical performance does not represent future outcomes; execution may be affected by slippage, circuit breakers, trading halts, withdrawal delays, network congestion, or insufficient market depth; liquidity can decline quickly under stress; using exchanges, brokers, funds, banks, or futures brokers creates custody and counterparty risk; self-custody of crypto assets involves technical risks including private key loss, phishing attacks, wrong transfers, hardware failures, and backup errors; bonds face interest-rate, duration, credit, and reinvestment risks; commodities face supply-demand, storage, transportation, rollover, and policy risks; using margin, futures, options, lending, or other leverage instruments can magnify losses and trigger forced liquidation; regulatory requirements for crypto assets, securities, foreign exchange, and commodity trading vary by jurisdiction, and policy changes can affect holding, trading, taxation, and cross-border transfer. Investors should make independent judgments based on their own financial condition, risk tolerance, and local regulations.