On February 3, 2026, Cathie Wood publicly presented a viewpoint in the podcast "The Rundown" that could significantly shift asset allocation: investors should consider switching from gold to Bitcoin. Accompanying this stance is a target price range for Bitcoin of up to $1.5 million in an optimistic scenario and about $761,900 in a baseline scenario. To traditional asset investors, these figures are almost "redefining asset classes." Behind her judgment lies a core conflict: on one side is gold, which the ARK team views as having reached a relative peak in M2 valuation, and on the other is Bitcoin, whose value storage narrative is still in price discovery. This switching suggestion is not merely an emotional slogan but is embedded in a complex backdrop of extreme gold valuation, a non-extreme macro environment, and the accelerated institutional adoption of Bitcoin.
Gold Prices Reach Historical Extremes: A M2 Perspective Misalignment
● The starting point of the valuation framework is the Gold/M2 perspective that the ARK team repeatedly emphasizes: measuring the "relative expensiveness" of gold in the monetary system by the ratio of gold prices to the global money supply (M2). Briefing information indicates that this ratio is currently at a historical extreme, which, in ARK's view, means that the pricing of gold relative to the total amount of fiat currency has significantly increased, far exceeding the equilibrium levels of most historical periods.
● To highlight this extremity, ARK compares the current Gold/M2 level with the high inflation period of the 1970s and the Great Depression of the 1930s. The briefing points out that the current ratio not only reaches a historical high but even surpasses those two periods considered the most turbulent for the monetary and credit systems, which is extremely rare in the long history of asset pricing, providing a direct annotation of the current "anomaly" in gold valuation.
● The contrast with the macro background is even more striking: according to ARK's judgment, the current global environment neither replicates the out-of-control inflation of the 1970s nor is it in the systemic depression abyss of the 1930s. The macro environment is not extreme, yet it corresponds to the extremely overvalued gold, presenting a clear logical mismatch, which is also the key starting point for their belief that gold's rise lacks fundamental support.
● Within this framework, the conclusion follows naturally: if Gold/M2 has already risen to historical extremes, continuing to heavily invest in gold at high levels means facing an asymmetrical structure with limited upside and significant downside. Cathie Wood's switching suggestion is based on the risk consideration of "staying too long at an extreme valuation without macro support," viewing gold as a potential source of pullback rather than a still cost-effective safe haven.
Gold Loses Its Narrative, Bitcoin Takes Over the Value Storage Narrative
● In ARK's narrative, Bitcoin's evolutionary path is moving from "digital gold" to "an alternative value storage tool to gold." Initially, it was more of a hedge against the traditional monetary system, but now it is gradually being integrated into asset allocation frameworks, beginning to compete directly with gold in terms of "long-term value preservation" and "inflation hedging," which is the underlying logic that allows Cathie Wood to propose switching from gold to Bitcoin.
● The research briefing indicates that ARK believes the current valuation of gold relative to M2 is abnormally high, while Bitcoin, under the backdrop of institutional adoption and ETF promotion, still has an overall penetration rate that is at a low starting stage. This means that within the same global asset pool, the "story" of gold is nearing saturation, while Bitcoin's "story" is just beginning to be seriously priced by institutions, providing space for a "value storage transition."
● As a safe-haven asset, gold has long played the role of preserving value during crises and inflation. However, when this traditional safe haven is considered "overpriced," and the risk-reward ratio is no longer attractive, new funds will naturally seek the next generation of "safe havens." From ARK's perspective, Bitcoin is absorbing some of the safety preference that spills over from gold in this migration of safe-haven demand, becoming a candidate with a distinctly different style but with hedging functions in the risk spectrum.
● If we extend the picture, we can summarize this trend with an intuitive image: from gold bars in a vault to UTXOs on the blockchain. The former is a physical form of centralized storage, while the latter is a digital accounting unit on a decentralized ledger. Cathie Wood bets that the migration of asset forms from tangible to intangible, from metal to code, will reshape the infrastructure of "value storage" in the coming decades, and this migration process is precisely occurring at the intersection of the current extreme gold valuation and the nascent institutionalization of Bitcoin.
Correlation Only 0.14: The Misalignment and Rotation of Gold-Bitcoin Ratio
● A key data point cited in the briefing is that since 2020, the correlation between Bitcoin and gold prices has been about 0.14. From a statistical perspective, this means the price movements of the two are very weakly related, far from being "twin assets" that rise and fall together. In Cathie Wood's asset allocation framework, this weak correlation is an important premise: it indicates that Bitcoin is not a high-beta version of gold but rather an alternative asset with distinctly different styles and driving factors.
● From a historical rhythm perspective, the briefing points out that in the past two Bitcoin bull markets, gold often initiated first, followed by Bitcoin completing more intense fluctuations and increases. In other words, gold acts as a leading indicator of macro sentiment and liquidity easing, while Bitcoin takes on more of an "offensive asset" rising script after sentiment is ignited and risk appetite is elevated, forming a kind of implicit rotation structure of "leading—passing the baton."
● For institutions, this weak correlation and rotation relationship has clear implications: Bitcoin can be viewed as a distinctly different allocation tool relative to gold, rather than simply adding repeated risk to a traditional commodity basket. It can hedge against currency depreciation to some extent while providing different volatility and return characteristics from gold, thereby enhancing diversification and potential returns at the portfolio level.
● In Cathie Wood's view, switching from gold to Bitcoin is more like an asset style switch rather than a mere repositioning within the same risk bucket. She is not encouraging the replacement of one safe-haven asset with another equivalent safe haven but is guiding funds from an old story that has been squeezed to extremes in valuation to a new story that is still being priced and coupled with macro variables, which is the deeper meaning behind the "correlation of 0.14."
$1.5 Million in the Distance: ARK's Long-Term Assumptions
● According to the research briefing, ARK publicly provides two target prices for Bitcoin in 2030: approximately $1.5 million in an optimistic scenario and about $761,900 in a baseline scenario. These two figures have a significant difference in magnitude, but regardless of which one, they point to a completely different market capitalization level compared to current prices, which is why they are seen by the market as "distant coordinates" capable of changing asset classes.
● The core assumptions behind these target prices are not simply a linear price extrapolation but are based on a series of structural judgments: accelerated institutional adoption means more mainstream funds will include Bitcoin in formal asset allocation; ETF channels expanding lower the allocation threshold and extend the duration of funds; and as time goes on, Bitcoin's market capitalization share in the global asset pool increases, moving from the margins to becoming a "systemic member," collectively supporting its long-term revaluation space.
● The briefing also reminds that other versions of target prices circulating in the market, as well as various estimates regarding the total market capitalization of digital assets by 2030, are all unverified information. In a serious research context, it is necessary to deliberately distinguish ARK's official statements (such as the two figures of $1.5 million and $761,900) from various second-hand interpretations and exaggerated narratives to avoid being distracted by multiple sets of numbers that obscure the understanding of its core logic.
● This high target price is not just a distant number; it will also reverse shape market sentiment in the present. When Bitcoin is upgraded from a "marginal asset" to a must-answer question on investment committees by mainstream institutions, whether to allocate or not and how much to allocate becomes a question that must be addressed. This change in discourse power is also the psychological confidence that allows Cathie Wood to place Bitcoin on the same narrative level as gold in the public opinion arena.
From Podcast to Trading Desk: How the Switching Suggestion Transmits
● Bringing the focus back to the podcast episode on February 3: a fund manager known for high growth and high conviction throws out a clear signal of "from gold to Bitcoin" in a public program, which itself carries strong symbolic meaning. It brings the asset allocation debate that was originally discussed only in institutional memos and research meetings into the public spotlight, providing the market with a clear narrative anchor.
● For different groups, the interpretation paths of such public statements vary. Institutions are more likely to view it as a long-term allocation signal, cautiously digesting it in conjunction with their own risk constraints and liability structures; while retail investors are more likely to see it as a short-term trading catalyst, interpreting "from gold to chain" as an immediately actionable directional guide, thereby amplifying short-term price fluctuations. This mismatch in time dimensions is also a common phenomenon in narrative diffusion.
● Once the ETF channel is fully opened, this viewpoint is more easily translated into real capital flows. For funds holding gold ETFs or commodity portfolios, adjusting allocations no longer requires complex custody and physical delivery arrangements but can gradually shift part of the positions to Bitcoin spot and related ETFs within the same brokerage and trading system, achieving a smooth transition from old safe-haven assets to new digital assets.
● Around this process, market dynamics quickly take shape: one side believes that responding to this signal at this moment is to "chase another dream" on top of high gold valuations, bearing the dual risks of Bitcoin's high volatility and policy uncertainty; while the other side sees it as a landmark event at the edge of the gold valuation bubble and the starting point of Bitcoin's repricing cycle, believing that the migration from gold to chain is inevitable in the process of constructing a new monetary and asset order.
Choosing Between Gold and Chain in This Cycle
This round of confrontation between gold and chain can be summarized as a core contradiction: the macro environment is not extreme, yet it corresponds to the extreme valuation of gold relative to M2, contrasting sharply with Bitcoin, which is still in the early stages of price discovery and institutional adoption. Cathie Wood's switching suggestion is based on the bet that this contrast will ultimately be "calibrated" through price and capital flows, with gold returning from overvaluation and Bitcoin completing its revaluation through time.
Essentially, this is not just a simple asset replacement but a comprehensive bet on the future shape of the monetary system, the evolution of inflation hedging methods, and the institutional status of digital assets. If gold is no longer the only carrier endowed with the "ultimate value storage" narrative, then the asset that takes over this story is likely to be on-chain assets with fundamentally different technological bases, with Bitcoin occupying the core position that institutions first attempt.
For observers, key variables to closely monitor moving forward include: whether the macro environment unexpectedly evolves into a new round of extreme inflation or recession, thereby providing "post-facto justification" for gold's overvaluation; whether the actual allocation ratio of Bitcoin in institutional asset allocation steadily rises, moving beyond mere verbal support; and whether the ratio of gold prices relative to M2 will experience a moderate decline or continue to rise under emotional inertia, further extending the tension between valuation and reality.
As funds stand at the crossroads of gold and chain, whether this round of asset migration from vaults to blockchains is a gamble driven by emotion and personal belief or an inevitable reallocation on the eve of a new monetary order taking shape remains to be seen. The answer will not be revealed in a single podcast or interview but will slowly be written into the price curves and balance sheets of the coming years.
Join our community to discuss and grow 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。
