Elon Musk and Jensen Huang, two tech moguls who are usually busy with their own empires, have recently, and unusually, aligned on one point—the value anchor of Bitcoin.

Just as Musk’s statement, “Electricity generation capacity is currency,” was still being digested, Huang immediately chimed in: “Bitcoin is essentially portable energy currency.” With this move, they pulled Bitcoin out of the old “digital gold” narrative and thrust it into a new “energy standard” script.

Why is this perspective worth pondering?

First, in the AI era, what’s the most critical resource? Electricity. Fiat money can be printed endlessly, but you can’t conjure up a single kilowatt-hour out of thin air—energy is bound by the laws of physics. Whoever controls the power supply holds the real hard currency.

Second, Bitcoin’s PoW mechanism naturally “solidifies” energy into digital assets. Norway’s hydroelectric stations, solar panels in the Middle East, and even idle generators in remote corners can all convert electricity into BTC through mining, instantly transferring value across the globe for immediate liquidity. These previously “stranded energies” now have a global outlet.

Look at cross-border settlements. In the past, energy transactions across countries had to go through a long chain—banks, clearinghouses, currency conversions, political risks… Now, with Bitcoin as a trustless protocol, value can be exchanged peer-to-peer, slashing all those friction costs in the middle.

So what’s the difference between “digital gold” and “energy currency”? The former is just a piggy bank; the latter is the foundational infrastructure of the global economy. Every Bitcoin is backed by real electricity consumption—this kind of physical anchoring is unmatched by any paper promise.

The fact that two of Silicon Valley’s brightest minds are pointing in this direction at the same time is probably no coincidence. Do you think this narrative shift holds water?