Apartment or Bitcoin: Choosing a safe haven for your wealth

​Real estate has been one of the primary ways to preserve wealth for decades. People buy apartments and houses not only to live in them but also as assets expected to withstand inflation and appreciate over time. Leon Wankum, author of Digital Real Estate, believes Bitcoin could take over part of that role. But what would that mean for the housing market itself?

Wankum does not argue that BTC will replace homes or make real estate obsolete. His argument is different: a significant amount of capital flows into the property market not because people need more living space, but because they are looking for ways to preserve their money's purchasing power.

View post on X Loading...

The tweet was deleted by the author.

But we saved everything 🙂.

If Bitcoin can compete for that role, the way housing is valued could also change. Prices would depend more heavily on a property's utility, location, and rental income rather than simply on expectations of further appreciation.

Real estate as a store of wealth

The sheer size of the market explains why this debate matters. According to Savills, the global real estate market is worth approximately $393 trillion, of which around $287 trillion is residential property.

By comparison, Bitcoin's current market capitalization stands at approximately $1.6 trillion.

Wankum describes part of housing's value as a "monetary premium." By this, he means the additional amount buyers are willing to pay not for the ability to live in a property, but for the characteristics that make real estate a store of wealth.

The author goes considerably further, suggesting that this premium could account for as much as 80–90% of the market's value. There are no independent estimates confirming such a proportion, so the claim is better understood as a premise of his model rather than an established fact.

In the United States, investors have accounted for roughly one-fifth of home purchases in recent years, with significantly higher shares in some major cities. Part of housing demand does indeed come from individuals and companies buying properties primarily as financial assets.

However, investment demand is only one factor influencing prices. Housing values depend on population trends, incomes, mortgage affordability, construction restrictions, land costs, local economic conditions, and the supply of new properties. The market's growth therefore cannot be attributed solely to efforts to protect money from inflation.

Wankum links the growing role of real estate as a savings vehicle to the period after 1971, when the United States definitively abandoned the dollar's link to gold. His reasoning is that the faster fiat currencies lose purchasing power, the more capital flows into scarce physical assets such as land, homes, and commercial properties.

View post on X Loading...

The tweet was deleted by the author.

But we saved everything 🙂.

Bitcoin offers a similar concept of scarcity, but without being physically tied to a particular location. This is the foundation of the argument presented in Digital Real Estate: if an investor primarily needs an asset to preserve wealth, BTC can compete with an apartment or house even though it cannot replace the property's practical function.

What Bitcoin offers as an alternative to real estate

When housing is viewed strictly as a financial asset, Bitcoin has several advantages. It can be purchased in any amount, sold quickly, transferred across borders, and held without the costs of repairs, building insurance, or property maintenance.

For investors, these advantages are particularly noticeable when mortgage rates are high. In the United States, the average rate on a 30-year mortgage exceeded 7% in the fall of 2026, making debt-financed home purchases considerably more expensive than they were several years earlier.

Against this backdrop, comparing homeownership with renting and investing spare capital becomes a practical rather than merely theoretical question.

View post on X Loading...

The tweet was deleted by the author.

But we saved everything 🙂.

However, the comparison quickly runs into limitations because real estate provides something BTC cannot. People can live in a house, rent out a property, and derive practical value from land and commercial buildings regardless of financial market performance.

Moreover, housing prices generally change much more slowly. Bitcoin can lose tens of percent of its value within a few months, while real estate rarely experiences comparable movements over the same period.

For someone using an asset as collateral, this distinction is particularly important.

The market for Bitcoin-backed lending already exists. Major cryptocurrency platforms allow users to borrow against their coins without selling them. However, these arrangements are much less forgiving than conventional mortgages: if Bitcoin's price falls sharply, the collateral can be liquidated automatically.

Homeowners face no equivalent requirement to provide additional collateral simply because their property's market value has declined over the course of a week.

What happens if some investment capital really moves into BTC?

If Bitcoin continues to establish itself as a store of wealth, the primary impact would be on investment demand rather than the underlying need for housing. People will still need houses and apartments, but some buyers may stop viewing real estate as the only available way to protect their savings.

In such a scenario, investors would place greater importance on a property's actual returns rather than simply expecting its price to rise.

That means rental income, maintenance expenses, taxes, and the quality of the asset itself. Real estate could face stronger competition from other financial instruments for every dollar of investment capital.

View post on X Loading...

The tweet was deleted by the author.

But we saved everything 🙂.

This does not mean prices would automatically fall. In cities with limited housing supply, high migration, or strong income growth, property values could continue rising regardless of Bitcoin's popularity. However, if some investment capital gains access to a more liquid alternative, this source of housing demand could weaken.

The role of collateral could also evolve. Today, real estate remains one of the main assets against which banks are willing to issue large, long-term loans. If Bitcoin becomes less volatile and more deeply integrated into the regulated financial system, it could potentially complement this role, although lending terms comparable to those of mortgages remain a distant prospect.

The potential impact of cryptocurrency on the housing market is therefore unlikely to take the form of a sudden exodus of capital from real estate.

Instead, it would more likely involve gradual competition for investment capital. If people have access to another globally available scarce asset, buying a second apartment is no longer the only obvious way to preserve wealth.

Bitcoin does not eliminate the value of housing. Rather, it encourages a clearer distinction between its two functions. The market will continue to pay for the ability to live in a property, rent it out, and use it as a physical asset. But real estate's role as a "safe haven for wealth" now faces a global digital competitor.