Don't Rush to Criticize Bitcoin—It's Becoming the 'Next Generation Gold'

比推2026-03-03 tarihinde yayınlandı2026-03-03 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

Title: Don't Rush to Condemn Bitcoin: It's Becoming the "Next Generation Gold" Despite the "digital gold" narrative, Bitcoin has consistently failed to act as a safe-haven asset during geopolitical crises, such as the 2026 Iran-Israel conflict, where gold prices surged while Bitcoin initially plummeted. The article argues that Bitcoin is not yet a true digital gold, as it lacks state adoption (central banks accumulate gold, not Bitcoin) and exhibits asymmetric investor behavior (falling with equities but not rising proportionally during recoveries). Three structural asymmetries hinder Bitcoin's safe-haven status: 1) a derivatives-heavy market structure prone to liquidations, 2) dominance by leveraged traders rather than patient capital, and 3) a lack of long-term behavioral trust compared to gold's decades-long record. However, Bitcoin has demonstrated utility as a "crisis utility asset," enabling financial transactions in extreme scenarios like Ukraine (2022) and Iran (2026) when traditional systems failed. For Bitcoin to evolve into "next-generation gold," it must narrow these asymmetries through market structure transformation (reduced leverage), participant shift (generational adoption), and behavioral accumulation (algorithmic trust). If achieved, Bitcoin could become a new asset class rather than merely replicating gold.

Source: Tiger Research

Author: Ryan Yoon

Compiled and Edited by: BitpushNews

In February 2026, as the Iran attack incident escalated, the price of gold soared, while Bitcoin suffered a sharp decline. Can we still believe that Bitcoin is "digital gold"? This article explores the conditions Bitcoin must meet to become the "next generation gold".

Key Points

In every geopolitical crisis, gold rises while Bitcoin falls. After six tests, the data has never confirmed the "digital gold" narrative.
While governments are hoarding gold, they still exclude Bitcoin from their holdings. For investors, Bitcoin exhibits asymmetry: it falls with the stock market but fails to rebound in sync with it.
Three structural asymmetries hinder Bitcoin from gaining safe-haven asset status: excessive derivatives (market structure), dominance by leveraged traders (participant structure), and lack of a repeated behavioral record (behavioral accumulation).
Although Bitcoin is not a safe-haven asset, it is a "crisis utility asset" that proves useful in extreme environments where borders are closed and banks are shut down.
If these three asymmetries narrow, Bitcoin may no longer be a replica of gold but evolve into a new category—the "next generation gold". Generational shift and algorithmic adoption are variables that could accelerate this process.

1. Is Bitcoin Really "Digital Gold"?

On February 28, 2026, the U.S. and Israel launched an attack on Iran. When "Operation Epic Fury" was announced, the price of gold immediately rose. In contrast, Bitcoin fell intraday to $63,000. Although it recovered within a day, its reaction was starkly different.

During geopolitical shocks like war, Bitcoin's performance completely diverges from gold. Although Bitcoin recovers quickly after the initial drop, chain liquidations by leveraged traders cause its decline to far exceed that of other assets. During the Iran-Israel conflict, its intraday drop reached -9.3%, while during the Ukraine war it was -7.6%. Meanwhile, gold was rising.

When an asset crashes first at the moment a crisis breaks out, can we really call it "digital gold"?

2. Bitcoin is Not "Digital Gold" for Nations or Investors

Bitcoin was not originally designed to be "digital gold". The title of Satoshi Nakamoto's 2008 whitepaper was "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System". Its starting point was a transmission mechanism, not a store of value.

The "digital gold" narrative became popular during the 2020 zero-interest-rate and quantitative easing era. As concerns about currency devaluation peaked, Bitcoin gained attention as a store of value. But in practice, neither nations nor investors treat it as "digital gold".

2.1 National Level: Hoarding Gold, Only "Considering" Bitcoin

Data from the World Gold Council shows that central banks are increasing their gold holdings year by year. However, no major central bank includes Bitcoin in its official reserve assets.

Some counter that the U.S. formally established a "Strategic Bitcoin Reserve" via an executive order in March 2025. The order text even mentioned that "Bitcoin is often called 'digital gold'". But the details are crucial: its scope is limited to assets obtained through criminal and civil forfeiture. The government is not buying new Bitcoin; it is choosing to hold rather than sell seized assets.

Notably, as the appeal of U.S. debt declines, Europe and China are actively buying gold, but Bitcoin does not appear on their list of alternatives.

2.2 Investor Level: Falls with Declines, Doesn't Rise with Gains

The second half of 2025 was decisive. When the Nasdaq hit a record high, Bitcoin had plummeted more than 30% from its October peak of $125,000. The two began to decouple.

The real trouble isn't the decoupling itself, but the direction. Bitcoin fell in sync with the stock market decline but failed to rise when the market rebounded. For investors, this is the worst combination. There is no reason to hold an asset in a portfolio that only shares downside risk but misses out on upside gains.

3. Why Has Bitcoin Failed to Become "Digital Gold"?

A safe-haven asset is not just one whose price rises. In academic definition, a safe-haven asset is one whose correlation with other assets drops to zero or turns negative during extreme market downturns. The key is whether its reaction in a crisis is predictable. Measured by this standard, the gap between gold and Bitcoin is evident.

Three structural asymmetries explain this gap:

Market Structure Asymmetry: Gold has physical demand supporting its price floor, and futures leverage is relatively low. Bitcoin's derivatives trading volume is about 6.5 times that of spot, and it trades 24/7, making it the first asset sold off when a crisis hits.
Participant Asymmetry: Gold's crisis buyers are patient capital (central banks, pension funds). The Bitcoin market is dominated by leveraged traders and hedge funds, which are the fastest to withdraw in a crisis.
Behavioral Accumulation Asymmetry: "Buy gold in times of crisis" is a behavioral pattern repeated for decades, becoming a formula. Bitcoin needs time to earn the same trust.

4. Not "Safe", But Proven "Useful"

In terms of safety, it's hard to call Bitcoin digital gold. But its utility in a crisis is real.

Ukraine (2022): After the war broke out, the Ukrainian central bank restricted electronic transfers and set withdrawal limits. Citizens couldn't access their deposits. Some refugees crossed borders with Bitcoin seed phrases stored on USB drives and exchanged them for local currency via Bitcoin ATMs or P2P transactions in Poland to sustain their lives.

UNHCR: Distributed the stablecoin USDC to displaced persons, allowing them to exchange it for cash at MoneyGram outlets.

Iran (2026): After "Operation Epic Fury", fund outflows from Iran's largest crypto exchange, Nobitex, surged by 700%.

These cases show people turn to Bitcoin not because it is safe, but because it works when the financial system fails.

In finance, a "safe-haven asset" means price resilience, which is a different concept from an "asset usable in a crisis". Bitcoin provides functional value for movement and transfer in wartime but cannot defend its price.

5. Bitcoin's "Next Generation Gold" Script

Although Bitcoin currently moves opposite to gold in every crisis, the path to "next generation gold" opens if the following three asymmetries narrow:

5.1 Market Structure Transformation

Derivatives trading volume being 6.5 times spot is a trigger for chain liquidations. Recently, futures open interest has declined, and price discovery is shifting towards spot and ETFs. The real test is whether leverage will spiral out of control again in the next bull market.

5.2 Participant Shift (Generational Change)

After the spot ETF approval, institutional inflows made Bitcoin a mainstream asset. But this creates a paradox: the more institutional holdings, the more likely Bitcoin is to be sold off with the stock market in risk-aversion events.

There is an overlooked variable here: generational change. When Gen Z starts managing wealth, gold might seem like "their parents' safe haven". This generation's first investment account is often a crypto exchange. This instinctive behavioral shift could be more influential than institutional decisions.

5.3 Behavioral Accumulation Shift

Gold took about 50 years after the Nixon Shock to establish its status. Bitcoin might not need that long. Although the sixth test (Iran attack) result was again a drop followed by a rebound, the repetition of this pattern is building a belief that "it always comes back after a fall".

A more important variable is algorithms. Currently, a large amount of trading is executed by AI agents and algorithms. If a "buy Bitcoin in a crisis" strategy is embedded into algorithms, this pattern can form without the need for human psychological accumulation. Trust might be established in code before it is in humans.

Conclusion: Today's Bitcoin is not yet "digital gold". But if it can achieve transformation in market structure, participant composition, and behavioral accumulation on top of its utility, it will become the "next generation gold"—not a replica of gold, but the birth of a new category.

Twitter:https://twitter.com/BitpushNewsCN

Bitpush TG Discussion Group:https://t.me/BitPushCommunity

Bitpush TG Subscription: https://t.me/bitpush

Original link:https://www.bitpush.news/articles/7616425

İlgili Sorular

QAccording to the article, why has Bitcoin failed to become 'digital gold' during geopolitical crises?

AThe article states that Bitcoin has failed to become 'digital gold' because in every geopolitical crisis tested, its price fell while gold's price rose. This is due to three structural asymmetries: an oversupply of derivatives (market structure), dominance by leveraged traders (participant structure), and a lack of a repeated behavioral record (behavioral accumulation).

QWhat evidence does the article provide to show that Bitcoin is not considered a reserve asset by major central banks?

AThe article cites data from the World Gold Council showing that central banks are逐年 increasing their gold holdings, while no major central bank has included Bitcoin in its official reserve assets. It also notes that even the U.S. 'Strategic Bitcoin Reserve' established by executive order in March 2025 is limited to assets obtained through criminal and civil forfeiture, not new purchases.

QHow does the article define the practical utility of Bitcoin in crisis situations, and what examples are given?

AThe article defines Bitcoin's utility as a 'crisis utility asset' that functions in extreme environments where borders are closed or banks are shut down. Examples include Ukrainian refugees using Bitcoin seed phrases on USB drives to access funds via Polish Bitcoin ATMs or P2P exchanges, and the UNHCR distributing USDC stablecoins to displaced persons for cash conversion at MoneyGram outlets.

QWhat three structural changes does the article suggest are necessary for Bitcoin to evolve into 'next-generation gold'?

AThe article suggests that three structural asymmetries must narrow for Bitcoin to become 'next-generation gold': a transformation in market structure (reducing derivative dominance), a shift in participant structure (generational change in wealth management), and a change in behavioral accumulation (establishing a reliable crisis response pattern, potentially through algorithmic adoption).

QWhat paradoxical effect does increased institutional ownership of Bitcoin have on its behavior during risk-aversion events, according to the article?

AThe article points out a paradox: as institutional ownership of Bitcoin increases through instruments like spot ETFs, it becomes more mainstream, but this also makes it more likely to be sold off alongside the stock market during risk-aversion events, rather than acting as a safe-haven asset.

İlgili Okumalar

Supply Chain, Energy, and Bloc Formation: Untangling the Core Threads of 2026 AI Investment

The core thesis for 2026 investment is a shift from traditional growth-inflation analysis towards a geopolitical framework of strategic blocs, supply chain reconfiguration, and capital expenditure (capex) direction. The US is moving from a global guarantor role towards a more bounded "camp system," reshaping trade, security, and technology flows. Key investment themes emerge from this realignment: production-capable US-aligned economies (e.g., Japan, South Korea), regional security focusing on Latin America, and the hard constraint of energy/grid capacity enabling reshoring. Europe's strength lies not in macro growth but in its high-quality "pick-and-shovel" industrial, electrical, and automation exporters serving the global capex cycle. AI remains the central US-China strategic battleground, driving massive investment in compute, power, and manufacturing stacks, with robotics gaining prominence. The investment implication is a rotation away from crowded US mega-cap tech momentum toward global beneficiaries of this restructuring: electrification equipment, industrial automation, energy storage, grid infrastructure, and select non-US markets. 2026 will be defined by investment intensity driven by geopolitical repositioning, not near-term commercial maturity.

marsbit42 dk önce

Supply Chain, Energy, and Bloc Formation: Untangling the Core Threads of 2026 AI Investment

marsbit42 dk önce

Appeals Court Rejects Sam Bankman-Fried Bid For New FTX Trial

A federal appeals court has rejected Sam Bankman-Fried's bid for a new trial, upholding his convictions in the FTX fraud case. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied defense claims of an unfair trial, sharply narrowing his legal options. His team could still petition the US Supreme Court. The ruling reinforces the legal precedent from one of crypto's most consequential cases, keeping focus on FTX's collapse, customer losses, and ongoing bankruptcy proceedings. For the market, the decision underscores the lasting impact of FTX on regulatory debates concerning exchange oversight, custody rules, and asset segregation as the industry works to rebuild trust.

bitcoinist47 dk önce

Appeals Court Rejects Sam Bankman-Fried Bid For New FTX Trial

bitcoinist47 dk önce

Apple Also Has to Pay Rent Now

Apple Pays Rent Too: The Two-Way Flow of "Traffic Tax" and "AI Capability Rent" Between Tech Giants For over two decades, Google has paid Apple an estimated $20 billion annually to remain the default search engine on Safari, a "traffic tax" for a critical user entry point. However, in 2026, the direction of this cash flow partially reversed. Apple agreed to pay Google roughly $1 billion per year to license its Gemini AI models, as Apple's own models reportedly struggled with complex tasks. This creates a unique dynamic: Apple acts as the "landlord" in the established search ecosystem, collecting rent from Google for access. Simultaneously, in the emerging AI arena, Apple becomes the "tenant," paying Google for access to cutting-edge AI capabilities it cannot currently match internally. While Apple claims its new models are "distilled" from Gemini outputs and contain "not a drop" of Google's original code, core dependencies remain. Its knowledge base is refined using Gemini's outputs, and its most powerful cloud model runs on Google's infrastructure. Apple has structured the deal as non-exclusive, allowing it to theoretically switch AI suppliers—a hedge against over-reliance. The future hinges on whether advanced AI models become a commodity (cheap and abundant) or remain a concentrated, scarce resource (expensive and controlled by few). Apple is betting on the former, leveraging its massive device ecosystem to be a powerful, choosy customer. If the latter proves true, its bargaining power could erode. This power dynamic is extending to developers. Apple, Google, and WeChat are all pushing for apps to expose their core functions as standardized "actions" or "intents" that their respective AI assistants (Siri, Gemini, WeChat AI) can directly call. The new scarce resource is no longer just app store visibility, but "being selected by the AI." The currency of "rent" has changed from a 30% revenue share to ceding control over how users interact with an app's functions.

marsbit1 saat önce

marsbit1 saat önce

Missed the SpaceX IPO? WEEX's "First Trade Protection" Lets You Experience US Stock Trading Risk-Free.

With the excitement around SpaceX's recent public listing reigniting interest in the US stock market, Chinese investors face significant challenges accessing compliant and convenient trading channels following regulatory actions against major online brokers. This article explores the available options, highlighting their risks and limitations. Traditional paths for US stock investments remain problematic. Qualified Domestic Institutional Investor (QDII) and Listed Open-Ended Fund (LOF) products, while compliant, suffer from high fees, significant purchase premiums, and a very limited selection of assets. Small, unregulated offshore brokers pose substantial risks, including potential insolvency. While secure, VIP accounts at banks in Hong Kong or Singapore require high minimum deposits (often 1-2 million RMB) and in-person visits, placing them out of reach for most retail investors. The article positions cryptocurrency exchanges, specifically their TradFi (traditional finance on-chain) offerings, as a compelling alternative. Platforms like WEEX are noted for providing access to a wide range of US stocks and ETFs, including SpaceX (SPCXON), through tokenized assets. This method offers advantages such as a single account for both crypto and traditional assets, USDT-based settlement avoiding fiat complexities, flexible leverage, and robust risk management. To attract users, WEEX is promoting a "First Trade Guarantee" campaign. Running from June 15 to July 8 (UTC+8), it features a $30,000 prize pool. Users who trade $500 worth of US stock contracts can qualify for a guarantee on their first eligible trade: 100% loss coverage up to $30 or a 20% bonus on profits up to $30. The campaign is presented as a low-risk opportunity for both crypto natives and traditional investors to experience US stock trading.

marsbit1 saat önce

Missed the SpaceX IPO? WEEX's "First Trade Protection" Lets You Experience US Stock Trading Risk-Free.

marsbit1 saat önce

How Difficult is Chip Making? A Division Error Costs 475 Million Dollars

How Hard Is It to Make a Chip? A Division Error Cost $475 Million Chip expert Shi Kan, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Sciences and a popular tech creator, explains the immense challenges of chip development. Chips are foundational to modern technology, but their creation is extraordinarily difficult. The journey from sand to a functional chip involves complex design and manufacturing, but a critical bottleneck is verification—ensuring the design works flawlessly before costly production. A single, undetected bug can have catastrophic consequences, as illustrated by the infamous 1994 Intel Pentium FDIV bug. A flaw in the floating-point division unit forced a recall costing $475 million. Unlike software, chips cannot be easily patched after manufacture, making "first-time success" paramount. However, industry surveys show only 24% of chip projects achieve this; over three-quarters require at least one costly re-spin due to design flaws. Verification has thus become the dominant phase, consuming up to 70% of the design cycle. The core challenge is a "verification impossible triangle" between high performance, good debuggability, and low cost. Exhaustively verifying a modern CPU core could take 15,000 years with software simulation, or 30 years with advanced hardware emulation—timeframes utterly impractical for development. Despite being essential, verification is often seen as unglamorous "dirty work," receiving less academic attention than fields like AI. Shi and his team are tackling this by developing an agile verification research framework called ENCORE, based on FPGA technology, to improve verification efficiency and debug capability. Beyond research, Shi engages in public science communication through long-form video content, aiming to demystify chip technology, AI, and computer science. He argues for the value of pursuing "hard and long-term" endeavors, whether in the meticulous world of chip verification or in creating substantive educational content, believing such sustained effort is likely the right path forward.

marsbit1 saat önce

How Difficult is Chip Making? A Division Error Costs 475 Million Dollars

marsbit1 saat önce

İşlemler

Spot

Futures