2026-01-17 15:25:20

Remember how people used to mock the United States for spending $7.2 million to buy Alaska? Looking back now, the resource reserves of that land have skyrocketed to hundreds of trillions of dollars.

Fast forward to today. The purchase price of Greenland has been inflated to the level of $70 billion. On the surface, the number seems astronomical, but think about it—its rare earth resources, energy reserves, and geopolitical strategic position.

The logic here is actually: things that are truly valuable are often underestimated early on. History repeatedly proves that in the long run, scarcity resources and strategic value will always be revalued.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

13 Likes

Reward
13
10
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

GasGoblin

· 01-20 00:57

Yeah, that makes sense. Who could see it in the early days? Resources will always appreciate. Wait, can Greenland really be bought? I've seen this script before. Underestimating this is easy to say, but more people probably end up stepping into the trap. The idea of scarce resources has been heard too many times; the key is still who holds the pricing power. That deal in Alaska does look like a big win now, but Greenland... it's still a bit uncertain. Long-term views are correct, but I'm just worried about not waiting for that long-term.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropSweaterFan

· 01-20 00:50

Wow, really. The group of people who criticized Alaska back then are probably kicking themselves now. As for Greenland, don't be fooled by the current hype. When the rare earth prices explode, you'll realize what true profit looks like. There were so many early underestimated opportunities; it all depends on who can hold out until that day. Speaking of which, this logic applies just as well in the crypto circle...

View OriginalReply0

StakeOrRegret

· 01-19 22:10

Greenland, in essence, is a gamble on the future. Whoever stocks up first wins. Wait, isn't this logic the same in crypto? Early projects were mocked, and now they’ve turned into gold mines. 7.2 million turning into trillions—that kind of multiplier is truly despairing. Honestly, if there were a place where you could truly predict future value, it would be even more exciting than early BTC. Scarcity is always king, whether it’s land or tokens. Looking at it this way, buying Greenland might be less risky than going all-in on rare resources. The most ironic thing in history is that outsiders see clearly, but insiders are still hesitating. Greenland’s situation, on the eve of geopolitical conflict, has lit a beacon. Really, those who mock now will definitely regret it in ten years. Rare earths, energy, strategic location—none can be missed. These are the truly scarce assets. Humans are like that; we only realize what value truly is after missing out. But paying 70 billion for an island, I still think it’s sky-high, but… maybe it’s really worth it.

View OriginalReply0

SybilAttackVictim

· 01-18 01:01

History repeats itself; cheap goods are only valuable when they come back. --- That piece of land in Greenland, just wait and see what the mockers say now. --- Basically, it's a matter of vision. Those who bought Alaska back then made a killing. --- Scarce resources are always hard currencies, and geographic location is priceless. --- 700 billion sounds like a lot, but what about over the next few decades? --- I just want to know who can spot the next "undervalued asset." --- This logic applies in the crypto world too. Projects that were criticized early on later skyrocketed. --- Strategic location > everything; geopolitics is all about this. --- I can see why big players are stockpiling land now. --- Things you can't understand are always the most valuable.

View OriginalReply0

NotAFinancialAdvice

· 01-17 15:55

Honestly, that deal back then feels amazing now; I just underestimated it. 700 billion Greenland? Really? They're still hyping this price? Early projects were all underestimated, that's the funny part of history. The game of scarce resources is always being re-priced, no problem. That Alaska thing was the best lesson, brothers. Resource wars will never go out of style; whoever holds them wins.

View OriginalReply0

GovernancePretender

· 01-17 15:51

Really, things that are hard to see through early on often become hot commodities later It's happened so many times in history, how come some people still can't learn? Wait, are you saying Greenland really will make a deal? The Alaska thing was indeed a classic reversal Scarce resources... are always sold cheaply The strategic location is a game-changer, I didn't see it from this angle Stop talking nonsense, no one can predict future resource prices This logic is basically betting on national fortune By the way, if a purchase really happens, how much would it take to be satisfactory? The key still depends on who holds the chips, right

View OriginalReply0

BearMarketBard

· 01-17 15:45

Early buyers are always right. Looking at that Alaska deal now, it's ridiculously cheap. Greenland too. The biggest laugh now will be silent in ten years. When it comes to scarce resources, it all depends on who can hold on. Why do we always like to focus on the current price tags and ignore the multiples behind them? This logic applies to crypto as well...

View OriginalReply0

Ser_This_Is_A_Casino

· 01-17 15:39

Early ALL IN scarce resources all win big, it's that simple That game in Greenland, now looks insanely cheap History loves to slap those mockers in the face, again and again This round is truly a double kill of geopolitics and resources, whoever gets on board first wins Calculating that Alaska deal, it's simply the story of humanity's highest ROI

View OriginalReply0

GasOptimizer

· 01-17 15:32

This logic is the same in the crypto world. Early low-liquidity assets are now skyrocketing in value. Speaking of which, the group of people who bought land early on really made a killing. Is there still a chance to get into Greenland now? Scarcity = valuable, this will never go out of style. I'm just a bit curious, who would really spend 70 billion on Greenland? It feels like hype. Resources are always re-priced; the question is whether our generation will live to see that day. The early lunatics all became prophets later on. Feeling a bit envious.

View OriginalReply0