Discussion Post: Let's talk about how gold continues to reach new highs in a chaotic order, but my $BTC is digital gold, so why isn't Bitcoin rising?

First, the conclusion: The main reason is that the time for Bitcoin has not yet come, rather than it losing its characteristics as digital gold!

My thoughts are:

For about the last decade, gold and BTC have been on two completely different "pricing channels" under the same macro narrative!

I wrote about this last time:

1️⃣ Gold is a role:

In times of risk aversion, rising political uncertainty, and skepticism towards the credit system, the market treats it as "insurance";

For example, currently, Trump's tariff policies and foreign attitudes, along with the instability brought by high global debt and deficits, have made gold the best choice not only for ordinary people but even for nations.

2️⃣ Digital is an attribute:

The scarcity of $BTC, its inability to be arbitrarily issued, and its non-sovereign nature indeed "resembles gold." But the reality is: BTC is currently more often treated by the market as a "highly volatile risk asset / long-term asset" rather than "insurance."

Additionally, after Bitcoin's introduction through ETFs, a larger proportion comes from trading volumes/leverage/ETF fund sentiment, making it very sensitive to risk appetite.

So when the macro narrative shifts from "inflation/easing" to "risk events/de-risking," a divergence occurs. When the market temporarily enters "de-risking/reducing leverage," BTC will be hit first.

An asset with excessive volatility or too much uncertainty will not be regarded as a safe-haven asset; safe-haven assets require a higher consensus.

3️⃣ Who is buying Bitcoin and who is buying gold?

In the short term, the most important factor for price is: who is buying (marginal buyers), how much they are buying, and whether they can move the market.

1) Marginal buyers of gold:

Official/central banks + large institutions "hedging allocation," which is a unique "super buyer" for gold.

Data from the World Gold Council shows that central banks are still net buyers as of November 2025 (for example, mentioning a net purchase of 45 tons, with a considerable cumulative purchase within the year), listing continued increases from central banks like Poland and Brazil.

These types of buyers have two characteristics:

They do not chase highs and sell lows (more strategic/reserve reallocation);

They are large in volume and have strong continuity (behavior of "national balance sheets").

2) Marginal buyers of BTC:

Venture capital/institutional product funds + leveraged traders.

BTC certainly has "structural funds" (for example, some companies continuously buying). However, even if companies like Strategy continue to buy large amounts of BTC in a short time, BTC still declines, indicating that short-term prices are still suppressed by "macro risk appetite/de-leveraging." Moreover, the scale of Strategy cannot be compared to that of nations.

In the structure of BTC's marginal buyers, the proportion of "retreating funds" is higher:

Funds seeking high volatility returns; institutional positions needing to control drawdowns/volatility; derivative leverage positions (risk control triggers will lead to passive reductions).

This explains the core divergence: gold receives structural buying support when "risk rises"; BTC is first reduced by risk budgeting during "risk rises."

4️⃣ The blind spot of the digital gold metaphor: Scarcity ≠ Safe-haven attribute (especially in the short term)

Many people understand "digital gold" as: fiat currency credit being diluted → gold rises → BTC should also rise.

This reasoning misses two steps:

1) From "credit dilution" to "price increase," there needs to be a "transmission mechanism."

The transmission mechanism for gold is very direct: central banks/sovereign funds can legitimately hold it; it is part of the traditional reserve asset system; its volatility is relatively lower, more like "insurance."

The transmission mechanism for BTC is more convoluted: the sovereign/central bank system currently finds it difficult to treat BTC as a core reserve asset (compliance, accounting, regulation, political risk, and volatility do not match); due to its high volatility, it resembles "an option on future changes in the monetary system/growth asset," rather than "insurance."

2) In times of risk shocks, the market will prioritize cashing in on "insurance" rather than "options":

This is the key point. When the market enters risk-off: "insurance" (gold) is sought after; "options" (highly volatile assets like BTC) are often sold first to obtain cash/reduce volatility.

In other words, short-term pricing power still lies in the hands of "risk appetite/liquidity/risk control constraints," and Bitcoin is currently not classified as a "safe-haven" asset.

5️⃣ This is not the "bankruptcy of digital gold," but rather the "misuse of digital gold as a short-term safe-haven asset."

In conclusion, I believe a more accurate statement can be summarized as:

Gold = Insurance;

BTC = A long-term option on future changes in the monetary system.

However, over a longer time frame, they address different levels of the same problem.

Gold follows the "slow variable of national balance sheets," while BTC follows the "fast variable of individual and capital system reconstruction."

What I mean is: the market's positioning of Bitcoin is still not accurate enough and needs time to prove certain things. I want to say that in the future, Bitcoin will definitely outperform gold!

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。