An article written for a young adult feeling nihilistic about his opportunity to enter the realestste market. It is Australian focused but it holds true globally I believe. The Housing Crisis: A Story of Monetisation Australia’s housing crisis isn’t simply about supply and demand, urban planning, or migration — those are surface-level symptoms of a deeper dynamic. At its core, it’s a monetisation problem. For decades, real estate has absorbed the monetary energy that once flowed into sound money. In the absence of a reliable store of value — something that preserves purchasing power over time — people have been forced to use houses as a financial refuge. Homes stopped being shelter first and became savings accounts made of bricks. This didn’t happen by accident. When the world moved off the gold standard in 1971, money became elastic — infinitely printable and unanchored from scarcity. As the currency supply expanded, people sought assets that could hold value better than cash. Property was familiar, tangible, and — crucially — limited in supply. The result was inevitable: monetary demand flooded into housing, distorting prices far beyond their fair utility value. Before 1971, the average home cost around two times the median income. Today, with the median income at roughly $78,000, a median home should reasonably cost around $156,000. Yet the real figure sits closer to $849,000 — more than five times higher. Now, it’s true that homes have grown larger and more functional over time. In the 1970s, the average house was about 100m²; by 2025, it’s around 245m² — a 2.5x increase. But while houses have grown, their purpose hasn’t multiplied at the same rate. Let’s be extremely generous and assume that today’s homes are twice as useful as those of the 1960s. That would suggest a fair median price of $312,000. Yet the actual median house price is still 2.7 times higher than that. Somewhere within that 2.7x–5.5x gap lies the true monetary premium that has accrued to residential real estate — the inflated value attached to housing simply because it has been forced to perform one of money’s primary functions: acting as a store of value, something the Australian dollar has failed to do since 1971. The Shift: From Real Estate to Real Stores of Value Here’s the good news: houses are beginning to demonetise. After decades of acting as a store of value, real estate is gradually returning to its rightful role — providing utility and shelter. I know this shift firsthand. For the past 30 years, I’ve used property as my own store of value. It made sense when there were few viable alternatives. But that equation is changing. There are now forms of money that perform the monetary function far more efficiently — scarcer, more portable, more divisible, and immune to debasement. And I’m not alone in recognising this. Every week, I speak with others who have long treated property as their primary wealth anchor. Many are now rethinking that stance. Quietly, at the margins, capital is rotating. The pattern is familiar: gradually, then suddenly. Understanding Value Through a Longer Lens To understand where we’re headed, it helps to zoom out. For centuries, gold has served as the world’s most trusted store of value. In Australia, the relationship between gold and housing has been remarkably stable over time. The median Brisbane house price has hovered between 300 and 400 ounces of gold for more than two centuries. Despite fluctuations in nominal prices, that ratio has remained a reliable measure of relative value. But that balance is shifting once again. Gold is re-monetising — regaining its role as a neutral, apolitical store of value. At today’s prices, 300 ounces of gold can now buy roughly one and a half houses, suggesting that gold is slightly ahead of housing in this new cycle. Yet even gold is being outpaced. Bitcoin is harder money than gold. Its supply is not just finite — it’s fixed. It’s digitally scarce, globally transferable, and immune to manipulation. Gold still depends on custodians and physical logistics; Bitcoin removes that friction entirely. When you zoom out, three truths become obvious: 1. Bitcoin is monetising faster than gold. 2. Gold is monetising faster than housing. 3. Housing is demonetising. The world is quietly repricing what it means to store value. A Realistic Goal for the Next Decade So, what does this mean in practice? It suggests a simple, grounded financial aim: accumulate the equivalent of one house’s fair utility value — between $156,000 and $312,000, depending on the standard of living you’re targeting — in sound money (Bitcoin or gold). As housing continues to shed its monetary premium and Bitcoin (alongside gold) continues to absorb it, those two curves will intersect. Over the long term, the price of real estate — when measured in sound money — will fall. Our measuring stick, fiat currency, is broken. So, while nominal house prices may continue to rise in dollars, their true value — measured in Bitcoin or gold — will decline. What looks like property appreciation on paper is often just monetary debasement in disguise. If current trends hold, I expect that within the next decade, one Bitcoin will buy a good house. Beyond the Numbers Of course, this isn’t just an economic story — it’s a cultural and psychological one. For generations, Australians have been taught that property equals security. But true security doesn’t come from the walls we own; it comes from the stability of the money we measure them in. As housing continues to shed its monetary premium and Bitcoin (alongside gold) continues to absorb it, the two curves will intersect. On a long enough timeline, the price of real estate — when measured in sound money — will fall.