In 2025, the precious metals market welcomed a狂欢 (celebration). After breaking through the $50 range in late November, silver experienced a parabolic rise, reaching a historic high of $72 per ounce on December 24th, with a full-year gain of 143%; gold touched $4,524.30 per ounce on the same day, rising 70% for the year.
In stark contrast, as of the time of writing, Bitcoin was trading at $87,498, down 8% year-to-date and 30% from its October peak of $126,000.
This has given followers who believe in Bitcoin's "digital gold" narrative food for thought. The macro trends driving the rise of precious metals do not seem to be transmitted to the crypto market.
The core drivers for the rise of precious metals come from a weaker US dollar, expectations of Fed rate cuts in 2026, and rising geopolitical risks—precisely the favorable environment long anticipated by Bitcoin supporters.
However, when making避险 (hedging/risk-off) allocations, the market favors tangible hedging tools with a century of credibility like gold and silver. Central banks globally have been increasing their gold reserves throughout the year, and retail funds also shifted towards physical precious metals after Bitcoin's decline early in the year.
Multiple studies in 2025 confirmed that gold demonstrates more stable避险 (hedging/risk-off) performance under various macro shocks, while Bitcoin more often behaves as a high-beta risk asset, positively correlated with stocks, and did not lead in this round of trading.
Structural demand differences further widened the gap between the two. Silver's rise stems not only from避险 (hedging) but also from record demand in industrial sectors like photovoltaics and electronics. The scarcity of substitutes in the supply chain exacerbates supply tightness, creating dual support from both macro and industrial factors.
Bitcoin lacks industrial utility, with demand concentrated in financial speculation and on-chain settlements, lacking a buffer from physical demand. This asymmetry means that even if rate cuts stall and risk appetite cools, silver still has industrial demand to underpin it, whereas Bitcoin can only rely on ETF fund flows to absorb selling pressure. Now that these flows have turned negative, the supporting force has weakened.
Silver's surge is a macro barometer rather than a trading signal. It confirms the market's pricing of low real interest rates and a weak dollar, but it also highlights that Bitcoin has not yet been integrated into the hard asset trading system.
For Bitcoin to reverse its downtrend, it needs improved regulatory clarity to drive institutional re-allocation, a recovery in retail sentiment, or for its value proposition—such as censorship resistance and programmability—to become prominent under macro shocks.
It is worth noting that silver's current positioning is relatively crowded. Potential factors like a hawkish Fed pivot could trigger asset volatility, which would also indirectly impact Bitcoin.
The divergence in 2025 proves that "hard assets" cannot yet be equated with Bitcoin. Silver combines industrial demand with institutional credibility, gold has institutional credibility and narrative momentum, while Bitcoin is still vying for institutional recognition and can never possess industrial attributes.
This does not negate Bitcoin's value, but for it to outperform, additional conditions need to be met. Once these conditions are satisfied, its upside potential could still surpass that of precious metals.
Until then, we need to be aware that macro tailwinds have temporarily failed to boost the crypto market, and Bitcoin still has a way to go before becoming a hard asset.
