From the night of January 29 to the daytime of January 30, in the East 8 Time Zone, a rare synchronized flash crash occurred in the global precious metals and cryptocurrency markets: gold, silver, and Bitcoin all experienced significant declines on the same night as the "safety net" of traditional finance and the crypto world faltered together. On the charts, gold plummeted from nearly $5,600 per ounce to below the $5,000 mark, while silver dropped from $121.6 per ounce to below $100; at the same time, Bitcoin's market value shrank by 6.4% within 24 hours, falling to 12th place in the global asset market capitalization rankings. That night, gold's market value evaporated by approximately $3.5 trillion, and Bitcoin was dragged down from its pedestal as "digital gold" back into the realm of volatile assets. The previously perceived "risk-off and hedge" logic, which was thought to operate in a complementary manner, collectively failed in the face of synchronized declines: when gold, silver, and Bitcoin no longer provided opposing protection, the correlation assumptions that investors relied on to build their asset portfolios had to be rewritten overnight.
Gold and Silver Plunge Together: The Weight of $3.5 Trillion Evaporated
● Severe Market Retracement: On the night of January 29, spot gold fell sharply from nearly $5,600 per ounce to breach the $5,000 mark, with a daily decline of about 7%-10%. For gold, which is typically viewed as a "low-volatility safe haven," such a speed and magnitude of decline resembled the collapse of a high-leverage risk asset rather than the traditional image of a slowly rising, gently correcting "major asset ballast." The back-and-forth trading amplified the visual impact of this massive bearish candle, quickly spreading the rare image of "gold can also flash crash."
● Silver's Amplified Collapse: Silver, which fell in tandem with gold, exhibited a more pronounced and tearing decline—its price dropped from $121.6 per ounce to below $100, with a daily decline estimated at 13%-18%. Silver inherently has higher volatility compared to gold, and in this market, it acted like a high-magnification amplifier for gold: the breach of key integer levels in price, combined with double-digit declines, not only shattered the psychological support of technical bulls but also further reinforced the market perception of "both safe-haven giants faltering simultaneously."
● The Volume of $3.5 Trillion Evaporated: According to Foresight News, the total market value of gold globally evaporated by approximately $3.5 trillion in this round of crash. Compared to its previous total scale of about $35.242 trillion, this means that about one-tenth of gold's book value was wiped out in a single trading day. For reference, under the same statistical criteria, the total market value of silver is about $5.563 trillion; although its size is much smaller than gold, it pushed the overall risk pricing of the precious metals sector to extremes through higher declines in this round of crash, triggering systemic alertness among cross-asset portfolio managers.
● Comparison with Bitcoin's Volume: Placing this $3.5 trillion evaporated value of gold into the crypto world truly reveals the scale of the impact—according to data disclosed by BlockBeats, Bitcoin's current total market value is about $1.64 trillion, meaning that the market value lost by gold on that day was close to twice that of Bitcoin's total market value. This comparison of "one category's single-day loss ≈ nearly double the volume of another entire asset category" allowed the shock of "the safe-haven anchor suddenly loosening" to quickly transmit from professional institutions' balance sheets to ordinary investors' social media timelines.
Bitcoin Falls to 12th Place: The Repricing of the Safe-Haven Narrative
● Timeline of Falling from the Top Ten: Almost simultaneously with the flash crash of precious metals, Bitcoin's market value shrank by about 6.4% within the past 24 hours, causing its position in the global asset market capitalization rankings to passively drop from the top ten to 12th place. From the perspective of investors in the East 8 Time Zone, this change occurred almost overnight: while they were discussing "BTC standing shoulder to shoulder with traditional assets" during the day, they saw its ranking drop at night, symbolizing much more than the 6.4% paper volatility itself.
● $1.64 Trillion Market Value and Over $82,000 Price: According to BlockBeats data, after the retracement, Bitcoin's market value is approximately $1.64 trillion, corresponding to a price of about $82,120. This price, compared to the previous market's enthusiastic expectations of "a hundred thousand dollars or even higher" as a phased target, does not constitute an absolute deep retracement, but is enough to make the "digital gold" label become hesitant: when the reality shows a downward trajectory in line with gold and silver, rather than providing support against the backdrop of traditional asset declines, investors are forced to reassess its pricing logic.
● Symbol of Global Asset Ranking: In the latest ranking, the top three global asset market values are gold (approximately $35.242 trillion), silver (approximately $5.563 trillion), and NVIDIA. This ranking itself constitutes a kind of metaphor: traditional precious metals still occupy the top two spots by absolute volume, while NVIDIA, representing the tech stock cycle, follows closely behind; in contrast, Bitcoin, the flagbearer of the crypto market, has been pushed out of the top ten and can only compete for discourse power with other traditional assets in a lower sequence. Changes in ranking may not directly reflect value levels, but clearly convey that the market is quietly reclassifying "digital gold" as a high-volatility risk asset rather than an absolute safe haven.
● Emotion of Broken Safe-Haven Common Sense: Within the traditional asset allocation framework, gold and Bitcoin are often viewed as the two ends of "risk hedging"—the former corresponds to inflation and geopolitical risks, while the latter corresponds to fiat currency credit and systemic financial risks, theoretically possessing a certain degree of negative correlation or at least low correlation. However, this time, gold, silver, and Bitcoin rarely chose to decline in the same direction, rendering the simplified logic of "stocks fall, buy gold; coins fall, buy gold" completely ineffective. The collapse of the safe-haven narrative is reflected in the market as price resonance, and in sentiment as a collective anxiety of "nowhere to hide."
Whales Bet on Ethereum Downward: The Shadow of an $81.8 Million Short Position
● Signals Captured by Onchain Lens: During this cross-market flash crash, the on-chain monitoring agency Onchain Lens issued a striking warning: the address pension-usdt.eth established a substantial leveraged short position in Ethereum. Unlike anonymous orders on traditional exchanges, such on-chain addresses act transparently, often interpreted by the market as movements of "smart money," thereby amplifying their impact on overall sentiment.
● 30,000 ETH, $81.8 Million in Scale: According to disclosed data, this address shorted 30,000 ETH, with a nominal value of about $81.8 million, using a leverage structure of about 3 times. In the current market liquidity environment, such a large single short position is sufficient to exert substantial pressure on prices during periods of limited trading depth; more importantly, it sends a signal to market participants: substantial funds are systematically betting on Ethereum's decline. The high concentration of chips also amplifies the "whale direction" in community discourse.
● Amplification Effect from a Historical Record of $2.7 Million: Research briefs show that pension-usdt.eth has historically profited about $2.7 million from shorting ETH. This "track record," verified by on-chain records, has labeled it as a "precise short" in the crypto community. When such an address with verifiable performance again heavily shorts, its actions are easily interpreted as "professional judgment," thereby driving some follow-on trades and amplifying the subjective perception of downward risk, even if the price itself has not yet experienced a corresponding magnitude of decline.
● Overlapping Timing and Boundaries of Coincidence: It is noteworthy that the timing of this whale's new short position closely coincides with the flash crash of the precious metals sector; this cross-market, cross-asset behavior of large funds appearing simultaneously provides fertile ground for conspiracy-theory interpretations. However, with the existing information, we can only confirm the overlap in timing and the similarity in behavioral patterns, and we cannot, nor should we, simply attribute the market crash to a single whale short position. A more reasonable statement is: on that night when safe-haven assets collectively weakened, the directional bets of such substantial funds became an important and prominent component of the emotional narrative.
Leverage Accelerates Liquidation: From MEGA Contracts to Liquidity Vacuum
● Background of New Perpetual Tools: Within the same market cycle, leading exchanges continuously launch new leveraged tools—among them, Binance's launch of MEGA perpetual contracts has become a focal point of discussion. For speculators accustomed to doubling down on a single asset, such new products further expand the space for increasing leverage; from a systemic perspective, each new high-leverage entry amplifies the potential risks of volatility and chain liquidations when the overall market positions are either long or short.
● Passive Deleveraging and Liquidation Amid Double Kill: When precious metals and crypto assets are hit hard simultaneously, traders holding cross-market long positions find it difficult to complete "orderly deleveraging" in a short time. They are often forced under margin pressure to simultaneously reduce positions in gold and long crypto, or even sell the most liquid assets on the table to meet margin requirements across platforms. The result is that what originally belonged to a single asset's shock quickly escalates into a multi-market liquidation through a chain reaction of "passive liquidation—price drop—margin call—further liquidation."
● Interwoven Picture of Three Clues: If we break down this volatility into three clues—BTC's retracement, the amplifying effect of new leveraged tools like MEGA, and the directional bets of whale short positions like pension-usdt.eth—we can see a mutually reinforcing picture: against the backdrop of macro sentiment cooling, traders did not shrink their positions in advance; instead, they continued to add leverage using new tools; when key price levels were breached, whale shorts pressed down, triggering continuous liquidations in the contract market, and liquidity was drained in a short time, ultimately forming a self-reinforcing cycle of "prices seeking liquidity downward."
● Rejecting the Fallacy of Single Attribution: However, simply attributing this multi-asset flash crash to a single MEGA contract or a single whale address does not align with the data and obscures more critical risk structures. Research briefs clearly indicate that a single triggering mechanism explanation for this crash is prohibited; a more reasonable narrative is: in a high-leverage, high-correlation market environment, any localized shock can evolve into systemic volatility. What we observe is the resonance of correlation and behavioral patterns, rather than a clearly identifiable "chain of culprits."
How Panic Transmits: From High-Net-Worth Circles to Social Media
● Perceptual Advantage of High-Net-Worth Funds: If we shift the lens from the market to the crowd structure, the asset allocation and information channel characteristics of high-net-worth individuals in the Hurun Report provide important clues: this segment of funds typically allocates to equities, bonds, precious metals, and some crypto assets simultaneously, and has access to more professional research services and faster information channels. When subtle signs of linkage appear between precious metals and the crypto market, they often realize "the safe-haven logic is loosening" earlier than ordinary retail investors, allowing them to adjust their positions in advance.
● Synchronized Liquidation Due to Bidirectional Allocation: Because high-net-worth funds have the realistic possibility of bidirectional allocation between precious metals and crypto assets, when one side encounters a shock, they tend to uniformly deleverage the entire "alternative asset" bucket rather than viewing gold or Bitcoin in isolation. Thus, what should have presented a "this rises, that falls" scenario in traditional models for precious metals and crypto assets has been rewritten by the logic of "the same batch of funds reducing positions simultaneously," resulting in an apparent synchronized liquidation effect.
● The Emotional Effect of Rare Risk Alerts: There has been a rumor in the market that Bank of China issued a rare risk alert, but research briefs have clearly classified it as "information pending verification" and have not provided an official text. A more prudent way to handle such narratives is to view these claims as signals of emotional amplification rather than confirmed facts: in high-net-worth and institutional channels, any whispers about "mainstream financial institutions issuing warnings" are quickly magnified into collective speculation of "is something big happening?" providing psychological justification for subsequent deleveraging actions.
● The Chain of Information and Panic Dissemination: Integrating the above factors, a typical path of panic transmission can be outlined—“early warning signs from institutions or major banks—high-net-worth individuals reducing positions first—social media and communities amplifying interpretations of unusual transactions and whale movements—retail investors passively following trends under the bombardment of second-hand and third-hand information.” On this chain, the real drivers of market movements may be the asset decisions in the first two links, but it is often the information reprocessing and emotional polarization in the latter two links that transform "market volatility" into a "system collapse narrative."
After the Rewrite of Correlation: The Next Act for Safe-Haven Assets
The collective decline of gold, silver, and Bitcoin on the night of January 29 to 30 was not just an ordinary technical correction but a direct impact on two long-standing popular narratives: one is that "gold and silver are always the ultimate safe havens in turbulent times," and the other is that "Bitcoin will long play the role of digital gold, hedging against traditional financial risks." When all three made the same directional price choice within the same time window, these stories were forced to pause, and investors had to acknowledge that the correlation in the real market no longer conforms to textbook simplifications.
Looking ahead, a more likely scenario may be: precious metals and crypto assets increasingly resemble a basket of "same-direction risk assets" in cycles dominated by macro liquidity and risk appetite, rather than being natural partners that hedge each other. They may still possess value storage functions in the long term, but in terms of short-term volatility, they are more susceptible to the combined effects of liquidity contraction and leverage squeeze, moving together towards the same side of the risk switch. For whales and institutions, this means a broader but also more complex battlefield—cross-market and cross-asset leveraged tools provide unprecedented operational space for reconstructing price discovery, while also making any "mismatch" potentially the starting point for systemic severe fluctuations.
For ordinary investors, what truly needs to be heeded is the excessive reliance on old correlations: viewing gold as an infallible umbrella of protection and Bitcoin as an inevitably counter-cyclical hedging tool appears overly naive after this flash crash. A more pragmatic attitude is to acknowledge the dynamic changes in asset correlations, shifting risk management from "asset labels" to the fine control of "position structure and leverage levels." The shattering of the safe-haven myth does not signify the end of security but rather the starting point of a new pricing system—at this starting point, those who can adapt fastest to cross-market linkages and new leverage structures will have the opportunity to gain an advantage in the next round of asset order rearrangement.
Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
