An argument has emerged that bitcoin could hold a clearer advantage over gold.

On Oct. 22 (local time), blockchain outlet U.Today reported that market analyst Jesse Eckel said gold’s scarcity could be shaken if artificial gold production technology advances, while bitcoin is structurally different because its supply is limited.

The argument followed an announcement by U.S. startup Marathon Fusion. Marathon Fusion said on Oct. 21 it succeeded in an experiment to turn mercury into real gold, dubbed “high-speed alchemy.” The company has also said it succeeded in converting mercury into real gold in an experiment last month and surpassed records at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) by about 10 times.

Eckel said on X, formerly Twitter, that gold’s supply structure could be significantly affected by technological changes. “The reality is lab grown gold will eventually happen and be cheap just like diamonds,” he said. “There will never be lab grown $BTC.”

Marathon Fusion is pushing to build a fusion reactor aimed at high power density in San Francisco, the company said. It has previously presented a theoretical process that could produce about 5,000 kg of gold per year at a gigawatt-class fusion power plant in 2025. The technology is based on nuclear transmutation that uses high-energy neutrons to convert certain mercury isotopes into gold.

Commercial mass production of artificial gold remains a distant prospect. The experiment announcement alone does not mean cheap artificial gold can already be produced at industrial scale, and Marathon Fusion’s latest announcement is also closer to a technology demonstration stage. It is difficult to see it as evidence that commercial viability or a mass production system has been secured.

Against that backdrop, predictable scarcity, seen as a core investment rationale for bitcoin, is drawing attention again. Gold’s total supply can rise with expanded mining, discoveries of new deposits and improvements in refining technology. If nuclear transmutation technology becomes a reality, pathways for supply increases could widen further.

Bitcoin, by contrast, has a maximum supply set at about 21 million units. Issuance follows a pre-designed schedule, and mining rewards are halved about every four years. To increase supply beyond the current cap would require changing the network’s consensus rules themselves.

The key to the debate is the difference in supply structures, rather than a comparison of prices between gold and bitcoin. Gold is a physical asset, but some argue its scarcity could weaken as technology advances. Bitcoin is seen as a different asset because its supply ceiling is fixed by network rules. The focus going forward is whether Marathon Fusion’s experiment can lead to actual commercial production and how such debate will affect bitcoin’s long-term scarcity narrative.

The reality is lab grown gold will eventually happen and be cheap just like diamonds. There will never be lab grown $BTC.