Both Are for Hedging Risks, Why Can't Bitcoin Outperform Gold?

marsbitPublished on 2026-01-26Last updated on 2026-01-26

Abstract

The article explores why Bitcoin has underperformed gold as a safe-haven asset during recent geopolitical tensions, such as those triggered by Trump’s tariff threats and Arctic instability. While gold rose 8.6%, Bitcoin fell 6.6%, challenging its "digital gold" narrative. According to NYDIG research, Bitcoin’s high liquidity and 24/7 trading make it function like an "ATM" during crises—easily sold for quick cash—rather than a store of value. In contrast, gold is held rather than liquidated, supported by strong structural demand from central banks. The analysis concludes that gold remains the preferred hedge for short-term, episodic risks, while Bitcoin is better suited for long-term concerns like fiat debasement or systemic financial crises.

Author:Francisco Rodrigues

Compiled by: Deep Tide TechFlow

Deep Tide Introduction:

Bitcoin has long been touted as "digital gold," but this narrative is facing a severe challenge amid recent market volatility triggered by Trump's tariff policies and geopolitical tensions in the Arctic. While gold prices have steadily climbed and approached the $5,000 mark, Bitcoin has performed sluggishly.

Research from NYDIG (New York Digital Group) points out that Bitcoin's high liquidity and 24/7 trading characteristics make it an "ATM" for investors to exchange for cash during panic periods, rather than a safe haven. This article delves into why Bitcoin is losing to traditional gold as a hedge against short-term policy shocks.

Full text as follows:

During uncertain times, Bitcoin behaves more like an "ATM machine," with investors quickly selling it to raise cash.

Key Points:

  • Hedging Disconnect: Amid recent geopolitical tensions, Bitcoin fell by 6.6%, while gold rose by 8.6%. This strongly demonstrates Bitcoin's continued vulnerability during periods of market stress.
  • "ATM" Effect: In uncertain times, Bitcoin acts more like an "automated teller machine (ATM)"—investors rapidly sell it to raise cash quickly, contradicting its reputation as a "stable digital asset."
  • Misalignment of Hedging Properties: Gold remains the preferred hedge against short-term risks, while Bitcoin is better suited for long-term monetary risks and geopolitical uncertainties spanning years rather than weeks.

In theory, Bitcoin should shine during uncertain times due to its censorship-resistant, hard-money properties. In practice, however, it has become the first asset investors sell when things get tense.

Over the past week, as geopolitical tensions escalated—following Trump's threats to impose tariffs on NATO allies over the Greenland acquisition and speculation about potential military action in the Arctic—markets retreated, and volatility spiked sharply.

Since January 18, when Trump first threatened tariffs in his push to acquire Greenland, Bitcoin has depreciated by 6.6%, while gold has risen by 8.6%, hitting new highs near $5,000.

The reason lies in how each asset fits into investment portfolios during stressful periods. Bitcoin's round-the-clock trading, deep liquidity, and instant settlement features make it the easiest asset for investors to reduce when they need to raise cash quickly.

According to Greg Cipolaro, Global Head of Research at NYDIG, gold, though less accessible, tends to be held rather than sold. This makes Bitcoin behave more like an "ATM machine" during panic periods, undermining its reputation as "digital gold."

"During periods of stress and uncertainty, liquidity preference dominates, and this dynamic hurts Bitcoin far more than gold," Cipolaro wrote.

"Despite its liquidity relative to its size, Bitcoin maintains higher volatility and is reflexively sold off as leverage is liquidated. Thus, in risk-off environments, regardless of its long-term narrative, it is often used to raise cash, reduce value at risk (VAR), and de-risk portfolios, while gold continues to serve as a true liquidity sink," he added.

The behavior of large holders (whales) doesn't help either.

Central banks have been buying gold at record levels, creating strong structural demand. Meanwhile, according to NYDIG's report, long-term Bitcoin holders are selling.

On-chain data shows that vintage coins (tokens that have not moved for a long time) are consistently flowing to exchanges, indicating a steady stream of selling pressure. This "seller overhang" suppresses price support. Cipolaro added, "The gold space exhibits the exact opposite dynamic. Large holders, especially central banks, continue to hoard the metal."

Another reason for this mismatch is how the market prices risks. The current turmoil is seen as episodic, driven by tariffs, policy threats, and short-term shocks. Gold has long been regarded as a hedge against such uncertainties.

In contrast, Bitcoin is better suited for addressing long-term concerns, such as fiat debasement or sovereign debt crises.

"Gold excels during moments of immediate loss of confidence, war risks, and fiat debasement that do not involve a complete systemic collapse," Cipolaro added.

"In contrast, Bitcoin is better suited for hedging long-term monetary and geopolitical disorder, as well as the slow erosion of trust over years rather than weeks. As long as the market perceives the current risks as dangerous but not yet fundamental, gold remains the preferred safe-haven asset."

Related Questions

QWhy did Bitcoin's price drop while gold's price rose during recent geopolitical tensions?

ABitcoin dropped 6.6% while gold rose 8.6% because Bitcoin's high liquidity and 24/7 trading make it an easy asset to sell for quick cash during panic, whereas gold is held as a stable store of value and benefits from structural demand like central bank purchases.

QWhat is the 'ATM effect' mentioned in the article regarding Bitcoin?

AThe 'ATM effect' refers to Bitcoin being treated like an automatic teller machine during uncertain times, where investors quickly sell it to raise cash, undermining its reputation as a 'digital gold' or safe-haven asset.

QHow do the holding behaviors of large investors differ between Bitcoin and gold?

ALarge Bitcoin holders (whales) and long-term holders are selling, creating steady sell pressure, while central banks and large gold investors are accumulating gold, creating strong structural demand and price support.

QWhat types of risks is gold better suited to hedge against compared to Bitcoin?

AGold is better for hedging short-term, episodic risks like immediate loss of confidence, war threats, or policy-driven market shocks, whereas Bitcoin is more suited for long-term concerns such as fiat debasement or sovereign debt crises over years, not weeks.

QWhy does Bitcoin's liquidity work against it in risk-off environments?

ABitcoin's high liquidity and 24/7 trading allow investors to easily and quickly sell it to reduce risk exposure or raise cash during market stress, leading to reflexive selling and volatility, unlike gold which is held and not as readily liquidated.

Related Reads

As Consensus Accelerates, What Are Young Investors Betting On?

Title: As Consensus Forms Faster, What Are Young Investors Betting On? In the rapid evolution of tech investment, a new generation of young investors is navigating a landscape where AI, robotics, commercial aerospace, and quantum computing are advancing simultaneously. Traditional investment logic based on financial models is giving way to a need for deep technical understanding and the ability to act before industry consensus forms. An analysis of trends from the "WAIC FUTURE TECH" list of young investment leaders reveals key shifts in focus. The first major trend is the movement of AI from the digital screen into the physical world. Investment is shifting from large language models and chatbots towards embodied AI, robotics, AI hardware, and edge computing. While demonstrations generate excitement, the real challenge lies in achieving scalable, reliable, and cost-effective delivery in complex real-world environments like factories and logistics. Success depends not just on algorithms but on the integration of sensors, actuators, and control systems. Second, the competitive focus for large models is moving beyond raw capability toward building an "intelligence flywheel." The goal is to create self-reinforcing systems where user interaction generates data, improving the model, which in turn enhances the user experience and attracts more engagement. Companies that successfully embed AI into workflows to create these closed-loop systems can build lasting value that isn't easily erased by the next model upgrade. Third, facing a potential bottleneck in high-quality human-generated data, investors are looking at new underlying technologies. Reinforcement learning and self-play, as demonstrated by AlphaGo Zero, offer paths for AI to generate its own experience. Scientific foundation models, which aim to build general AI capabilities for fields like life sciences and materials discovery, represent a non-consensus direction that could unlock new frontiers of knowledge and data. Finally, in deep-tech areas like quantum computing, commercial aerospace, and space-based infrastructure, patient capital is essential. These fields have long, uncertain development and validation cycles involving complex engineering, supply chains, and regulations. Investment here requires a long-term view, focusing on foundational team capabilities and the eventual emergence of market demand, even if commercial returns are distant. Collectively, these trends illustrate how young investors are adapting to a new era. They are learning to make earlier, technically-informed judgments, balance hype with real-world viability, and provide the patient capital needed to build the deep-tech foundations of the future.

marsbit20m ago

As Consensus Accelerates, What Are Young Investors Betting On?

marsbit20m ago

Can Japan Buy Growth with AI? Will the Bond Market Believe It?

Japan's cabinet has introduced the 2026 Basic Policy on Economic and Fiscal Management and Reform, shifting its primary fiscal target. The new framework moves away from the traditional annual primary balance goal and instead prioritizes a stable reduction of the debt-to-GDP ratio. This change is tied to a strategy of increased "responsible proactive fiscal" spending, aiming to boost long-term growth through investments in strategic sectors like AI, semiconductors, energy, and robotics. The government estimates total public and private investment in 62 key technologies could exceed 370 trillion yen by 2040. The market reaction has been mixed and cautious. While equity markets may respond to policy signals, bond markets are focused on fiscal credibility. Concerns center on whether the weakening of the clear primary balance anchor could lead to looser fiscal discipline. If investors doubt that these strategic investments will generate sufficient productivity gains, tax revenue, and nominal growth to outpace rising interest costs, they may demand higher yields on Japanese Government Bonds (JGBs). Recent volatility in the yen and JGB yields, with the 10-year yield briefly reaching 2.9%, reflects this skepticism. The success of this new framework hinges on two factors: whether Japan can achieve a nominal growth rate consistently higher than its long-term interest rates, and whether future budgets demonstrate disciplined control over bond issuance. The government's narrative is that strategic investment is essential to break Japan's cycle of low growth, aging, and labor shortages. However, the bond market will continuously assess the credibility of this plan, pricing the risk that it may represent fiscal expansion rather than a viable growth strategy.

marsbit57m ago

Can Japan Buy Growth with AI? Will the Bond Market Believe It?

marsbit57m ago

Misjudged A-Shares: Resilience, Expectations, and Confidence

China's A-share market recently faced selling pressure, especially in tech sectors, initially triggered by a global tech sell-off that began in South Korea. However, the article argues this is a case of "mistaken injury" and highlights the market's underlying resilience. This resilience stems from three main pillars: **1) Tech Sector Fundamentals:** Unlike Korea's market dominated by a few memory chip stocks, China's tech sector is diversified across computing, communications, electronics, and semiconductors, supported by dual narratives of global AI supply chains and domestic substitution. Core areas like optical modules and fiber optics continue to show strong earnings growth. **2) "National Team" Support:** State-backed institutions and large corporations have made significant market purchases and announced buybacks, providing liquidity and signaling confidence. This is seen as a stabilizing policy signal, often associated with market bottoms. **3) Broader Market Pillars:** Other major sectors are showing endogenous recovery momentum. Consumer stocks benefit from stabilizing CPI and signs of sector recovery (e.g., liquor price hikes). Cyclical sectors like aluminum have high earnings, potential price increases due to tight supply, and low valuations. The financial sector offers stable dividends and low valuations. The conclusion is that the sell-off was driven by external contagion, not a collapse in fundamentals. With strong policy support and recovering momentum across key sectors, the A-share market possesses the toughness to regain stability.

marsbit1h ago

Misjudged A-Shares: Resilience, Expectations, and Confidence

marsbit1h ago

Trading

Spot
活动图片