Australian property is usually discussed in dollars.

A Sydney house costs this much. A Brisbane house rose by that much. A Perth unit increased by this percentage. The numbers change, but the frame is usually the same: property prices are measured in Australian dollars, so that is how we understand whether homes are becoming more or less expensive.

But the unit we use to measure something matters.

Between early 2020 and early 2026, Australian property prices rose sharply in dollar terms. Houses and units became more expensive across most capital cities, and many regional markets also moved significantly higher.

Measured in Bitcoin, however, the story looks very different.

Across the same period, Australian homes became dramatically cheaper when priced in BTC.

That does not mean homes lost their usefulness. A house still provides shelter. A well-located property still carries economic value. Land is still scarce. Rental income still matters.

What it does show is that “rising prices” are not always as simple as they appear. Sometimes the asset is changing. Sometimes the money we use to measure it is changing too.

What happens when we change the ruler?

Fidelity Digital Assets recently made this point by comparing the price of an average American home in US dollars and Bitcoin.

Between the first quarter of 2020 and the first quarter of 2026, the median US home rose from about US$323,000 to US$447,000. Measured in dollars, the home became more expensive.

Measured in Bitcoin, its price fell from more than 50 BTC to less than 5 BTC.

The lesson is not that houses stopped mattering. The lesson is that the measuring stick changed. If the unit you are pricing things in is losing purchasing power — or if another unit is gaining purchasing power much faster — the picture can shift dramatically.

So what happens when we apply the same idea to Australian property?

Australian property in dollars

In Australian dollar terms, the answer is familiar.

Property became more expensive.

The median Sydney house rose from approximately A$1.17 million in the first quarter of 2020 to A$1.79 million in the first quarter of 2026 — an increase of about 53%.

Brisbane’s median house more than doubled, from around A$585,000 to A$1.21 million. Adelaide rose from approximately A$542,000 to A$1.10 million, while Perth increased from A$527,000 to almost A$1.18 million.

Units told a more mixed story. Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra units appreciated less dramatically, while Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth units rose much more strongly.

By the usual measure, Australian property owners became considerably wealthier. Their homes were worth more Australian dollars than before.

But that is only one way to measure the change.

Australian property in Bitcoin

On 31 March 2020, one Bitcoin was worth approximately A$10,549. By 31 March 2026, one Bitcoin was worth approximately A$98,770.

Using those quarter-end prices, the change is stark.

A Sydney house fell from approximately 111 BTC to 18 BTC. A Brisbane house fell from around 55 BTC to 12 BTC. An Adelaide house fell from approximately 51 BTC to 11 BTC, while a Perth house fell from around 50 BTC to 12 BTC.

Units show the same pattern.

A Melbourne unit fell from approximately 53 BTC to 6 BTC. A Canberra unit fell from around 42 BTC to 5 BTC.

Across Australia’s capital cities, houses and units became roughly 76% to 88% cheaper in Bitcoin terms, even though most became substantially more expensive in Australian dollars.

That is the core insight.

The house did not become cheap in dollars. Bitcoin became much stronger as a unit of account.

Is this just a convenient Bitcoin price?

Bitcoin can move sharply over short periods, so any comparison based on a single date deserves scrutiny.

A 31 March comparison could be accused of picking a convenient endpoint. To test that, we can use the average weekday BTC/AUD price across each quarter instead.

Bitcoin averaged approximately A$12,609 during the first quarter of 2020 and A$110,748 during the first quarter of 2026.

That changes the exact numbers, but it does not change the conclusion.

Using quarterly average prices, a Sydney house falls from approximately 93 BTC to 16 BTC. A Brisbane house falls from 46 BTC to 11 BTC. A Perth house falls from 42 BTC to 11 BTC. A Melbourne unit falls from 44 BTC to 6 BTC.

Across the capital-city markets, houses and units still became approximately 75% to 87% cheaper when measured in Bitcoin.

The result is not dependent on one particular day. It reflects a much larger movement in purchasing power.

Regional Australia tells a similar story

Regional property also performed strongly over this period.

By March 2026, regional home prices had risen approximately 57% over five years, compared with 39% across the combined capital cities. Affordability, lifestyle preferences and the movement away from larger cities all contributed.

That matters for places such as the Gold Coast, Byron Bay, Coffs Harbour, Newcastle, Wollongong, Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo, where remote work and lifestyle migration changed what buyers were willing to pay.

Other markets, including Townsville, Cairns, Toowoomba and Bunbury, were shaped by a different mix of affordability, employment conditions, infrastructure investment and interstate migration.

Comparable quarterly data for smaller regional markets is less consistent, because sources often use different suburb, council and statistical-area boundaries. Even so, the broader point remains difficult to ignore.

Regional property rose strongly in Australian dollars. Bitcoin rose much faster.

Is this all currency debasement?

Not entirely.

The comparison clearly shows that Bitcoin appreciated much faster than Australian housing. It also shows that a rising dollar price does not tell us everything about an asset’s changing purchasing power.

But the ratio alone cannot prove that every increase in housing prices was caused by the Australian dollar losing value.

Australian housing has faced real supply and demand pressure.

Population growth accelerated after borders reopened. Brisbane and Perth continued to benefit from internal migration, while overseas migration added demand across the major cities.

At the same time, Australia has struggled to build enough housing. The Productivity Commission has estimated that Australia now completes roughly half as many homes for each hour worked as it did in 1995. Housing construction productivity has declined while productivity across the broader economy has increased.

Credit also matters. Property is usually purchased with borrowed money, and lower interest rates or easier credit conditions allow buyers to bid more for the same limited supply of homes. Housing credit growth also strengthened again, particularly among investors, as financial conditions eased through 2025.

The pandemic changed behaviour too. Remote work made regional and lifestyle markets more practical, while internal migration placed additional pressure on housing supply outside the largest capitals.

These are real forces. Housing prices did not rise only because the dollar weakened.

Houses and units do not behave the same way

It is also useful to separate houses from units.

A house usually includes a larger share of scarce land. Units can generally be supplied more easily by building upward, although planning restrictions, construction costs and financing conditions still limit development.

Where houses substantially outperformed units, scarce land and detached-home preferences appear to have mattered.

Where units also rose sharply — particularly in Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth — population growth, affordability pressure and credit conditions were likely more influential.

More recently, buyers constrained by borrowing capacity have increasingly turned toward units as the more accessible option. That can change the relative performance of different property types over time.

Three things can be true

The data supports three conclusions at once.

Australian houses and units became more expensive in dollars.

Bitcoin’s purchasing power increased much faster, making those same properties dramatically cheaper when priced in BTC.

And housing scarcity, population growth, migration, credit conditions and lifestyle changes made many Australian homes genuinely more valuable.

That is why the Fidelity comparison is useful, but should not be stretched too far.

A home did not become worthless because it required fewer Bitcoin. It still provided shelter, utility, location, land value and, in many cases, rental income.

Bitcoin simply became capable of buying much more home.

That is the deeper lesson.

The number beside an asset only makes sense when we understand the money being used to measure it.

If Australian homes can become dearer in dollars and cheaper in Bitcoin at the same time, then the question is not only “What is the property worth?”

It is also:

“What are we measuring it against?”

The Great Australian Housing Boom, Priced in Bitcoin