On January 28, 2026, Eastern Standard Time, the global gold market's market value was significantly reassessed within 24 hours, attracting widespread attention across the market. According to data from 8marketcap and others, the market value of gold surged by approximately 4.37% in a single day, translating to an increase of about $1.64 trillion, a figure that is close to the current total market value of Bitcoin at approximately $1.74 trillion. The extreme comparison of traditional assets and crypto assets on the same timeline was immediately amplified by the media and community into the topic of "gold increasing by the market value of one Bitcoin in a day." In the current context of macroeconomic uncertainty and intertwined geopolitical risk sentiment, an intuitive question arises: why do massive funds choose to flow into traditional safe-haven assets rather than into crypto assets like Bitcoin, which are viewed as "digital gold"?
$1.64 Trillion Added in One Day: Signals of Extreme Gold Market Conditions
● Fund Amplification: According to 8marketcap data, on January 28, 2026, the total market value of gold increased by approximately 4.37% within 24 hours, corresponding to a market value increase of about $1.64 trillion, which is an extreme situation even among traditional commodities. Several Chinese crypto and commodity information platforms (such as Rhythm and Golden Finance) reported this data, making "trillion-level reassessment in a single day" the core topic of the market that day.
● Volume Benchmarking: Media outlets like Rhythm described this market condition as "the market value added by gold in one day is almost equivalent to the total market value of one Bitcoin," highlighting the digital impact. Directly comparing the $1.64 trillion single-day increase with Bitcoin's overall volume of $1.74 trillion transformed the volatility that originally belonged to the precious metals sector into a narrative conflict of "traditional vs. crypto," further amplifying the public opinion impact of the event.
● Unusual Market Conditions: From the perspective of growth and volume sensation, the single-day leap in gold's market value far exceeded market expectations for the usual volatility of precious metals. Although the briefing did not provide specific trading data and market details, the combination of a market value increase of over 4% and a trillion-level scale can reasonably be viewed as an unusually amplified short-term market condition, rather than a gentle rise in price under normal liquidity.
● Sector Resonance: Reports from institutions like Golden Finance emphasized that this round is not a single asset rising independently from the sector, but rather a concentrated reflection of the overall strengthening of the precious metals market. The upward linkage of silver, related mining stocks, and some commodity indices led the market to interpret it as a "repricing of the entire traditional safe-haven sector," rather than a technical market condition isolated to gold.
Bitcoin's $1.74 Trillion: The Volume and Setting of Digital Gold
● Volume Comparison: Research briefs indicate that Bitcoin's current total market value is approximately $1.74 trillion, which is almost at the same level as the $1.64 trillion added by gold on January 28. In other words, within a single day, gold, through a market value reassessment, almost "magically" added a complete Bitcoin's volume, reinforcing the sense of scale disparity between traditional safe-haven assets and crypto assets.
● Narrative Positioning: Throughout past crypto cycles, Bitcoin has gradually been packaged by the market as "digital gold"—a long-term store of value that is anti-inflationary, possesses scarcity attributes, and can circulate across borders. Institutions and retail investors often compare Bitcoin and gold within the same "safe-haven asset pool," differing only in compliance, custody methods, and trading markets.
● Attribute Differences: Despite both being categorized under safe-haven narratives, Bitcoin and gold still exhibit significant gaps in market characteristics. Bitcoin has higher volatility, stronger price elasticity, and liquidity highly concentrated in exchanges, with a lower holding threshold but higher requirements for private key management. In contrast, gold exhibits more "steady-state characteristics" in terms of volatility and price slope, with a more mature depth in both physical and financial derivative markets, and clearer regulatory and accounting treatment rules in most legal systems.
● Interpretation Boundaries: Current data only provides Bitcoin's total market value of approximately $1.74 trillion, lacking specific rise and fall data for the same time period. For rigor, this section only discusses relative volume and asset attributes, without amplifying interpretations of Bitcoin's price movements on that day, to avoid misleading conclusions of "gold taking away Bitcoin funds" in the absence of reliable data support.
Rising Risk Sentiment: A Reflection of Macro and Geopolitical Unrest
● Macro Background: Research briefs indicate that recent global market demand for traditional safe-haven assets has significantly rebounded, with the underlying context being rising macroeconomic uncertainty and potential geopolitical tensions. In an environment where growth prospects are unclear and there are divergences in market expectations for future policy paths, institutions are more inclined to increase the proportion of "hard assets" and high-credit assets in their balance sheets, with gold precisely at the intersection of this preference.
● Mainstream Interpretation: Market voices like Golden Finance assert that the strength of this round of precious metals market conditions highlights the attractiveness of traditional safe-haven assets in the current environment. For many institutional traders and asset allocation teams, gold is a highly standardized asset in risk models, supported by comprehensive historical data and derivative tools for hedging portfolio volatility and responding to tail events, making this "modelability" itself an attraction.
● Logical Preference: In the context of expectations for economic slowdown, inflation concerns, and a loose outlook for future monetary environments, gold is often viewed as the preferred target for hedging against erosion of monetary purchasing power and adjustments in financial asset prices. On one hand, gold does not correspond to any entity's liabilities, posing extremely low credit risk; on the other hand, it has historically recorded relatively stable performance during high uncertainty phases, making it easier for decision-making committees to approve increased positions.
● Information Limitations: Currently, publicly available information mainly focuses on analyses of macro environment and risk preferences, without authoritative granular data explaining why there was a $1.64 trillion market value increase within a single trading day. Whether it is ETF net inflows, changes in futures positions, or central bank gold purchasing rhythms, the briefing did not provide clear breakdowns, thus maintaining a cautious attitude towards the specific driving components' proportional structure.
Preference for Traditional Safe Havens? Structural Divides Between Gold and Bitcoin
● Allocation Structure: From the perspective of institutional asset allocation, gold clearly leads Bitcoin in terms of compliance, accounting treatment, and regulatory recognition. In the investment charters and risk control frameworks of most large institutions, gold is viewed as a standardized asset, while Bitcoin often remains in the pilot, alternative asset, or speculative position with minimal proportions, leading to inherent differences in their capacity to attract funds during the same round of rising risk sentiment.
● Shifts Under Extreme Sentiment: When risk sentiment becomes extreme, many funds will prioritize withdrawing from high-volatility, high-risk assets, flowing back into safe assets like government bonds and cash, and then leaning towards traditional safe-haven targets like gold. Although Bitcoin possesses some safe-haven narrative, it is still categorized as a high-volatility risk asset in most risk control models, placing it at a disadvantage in the "first-time risk aversion" fund reallocation path.
● Narrative Suppression: The explosive increase in gold's single-day market value and the public opinion effect of Bitcoin's total market value being "benchmarked" have subjected the "digital gold" narrative to explicit scrutiny in a short time. When the media emphasizes "gold increasing by the market value of one Bitcoin in a day," some institutions and compliance departments are more likely to view Bitcoin as "a more elastic risk asset," rather than a strictly comparable safe-haven tool to gold, thus suppressing its short-term attractiveness from both public opinion and psychological perspectives.
● Causal Caution: It is important to emphasize that there is currently a lack of quantitative data on the direct flow paths of funds between gold and Bitcoin, and it cannot be proven that a large amount of risk-averse funds have withdrawn from Bitcoin to invest in gold. We can only discuss the "structural preference differences" between the two asset classes in terms of regulation, risk preferences, and balance sheet friendliness, without simply concluding that "gold has absorbed Bitcoin's funds."
Can the Single-Day Surge Continue? Historical Experience and Scenario Projections
● Trend Boundaries: From historical experience, whether for gold or Bitcoin, similar extreme market value changes in a single day are often difficult to linearly extrapolate as medium- to long-term trends. Whether it is the sharp rise of precious metals during crises or Bitcoin's vertical surge in bull markets, both have been proven to contain significant short-term emotional and liquidity-driven components, with subsequent trends often entering high-level oscillation and gradual digestion phases.
● Conceptual Distinction: It is necessary to distinguish between "market value increase" and "real new funds." The explosive growth of market value reflects more of a collective reassessment of prices on existing chips, and does not imply that the same scale of net funds flowed in on that day. For this $1.64 trillion single-day increase in gold, it is currently impossible to accurately divide how much of it came from price increases of existing positions and how much came from new positions based on publicly available information.
● Scenario Changes: If macro risks ease in the coming months, risk sentiment cools, and gold's risk premium begins to decline, some funds with a higher risk appetite may redirect their attention back to crypto assets and other high-elasticity targets. In this scenario, Bitcoin, with its liquidity and volatility advantages, may once again become a tool for "offensive allocation," while gold returns to a more neutral defensive role.
● Observation Dimensions: For investors, it is more important to observe the linkage and divergence of gold and Bitcoin market values in the coming weeks and even months. If gold's market value continues to rise at high levels while Bitcoin's volume stagnates or even shrinks, it may indicate that risk-averse funds are indeed more concentrated in traditional assets; conversely, if both show synchronized strength in a high-volatility environment, it suggests that both "risk aversion + risk preference" funds are expanding, rather than a simple case of one taking from the other.
The Test of the Digital Gold Narrative and Next Stage Observation Points
● Amplified Conflict: The recent $1.64 trillion market value increase in gold, almost equivalent to Bitcoin's $1.74 trillion total market value, has greatly amplified the opposition between traditional and crypto safe-haven assets in public opinion. Gold's identity as an "established safe haven" and Bitcoin's "digital gold" narrative are being tested on the same scale, subjecting the latter's safe-haven narrative to greater scrutiny in the short term.
● Advantages and Boundaries: In the current environment of macroeconomic uncertainty and geopolitical risks, gold, which is more compliant, less volatile, and has more abundant historical data, indeed occupies the initiative in the competition for risk-averse funds. However, this does not signify the end of the long-term narrative for digital assets. Bitcoin's role in cross-border liquidity and programmable financial ecosystems still provides imagination for its long-term risk premium and growth potential.
● Key Indicators: To rationally assess the ebb and flow of these two asset classes, it is worth closely tracking three dimensions: first, the evolution and easing rhythm of macro risk events; second, the mid-term trends of core indicators such as gold, precious metals, and Bitcoin's market value and trading volume; third, publicly disclosed changes in institutional asset allocation preferences, including the structure of holdings in financial reports and asset managers' adjustments in attitudes towards alternative assets.
● Risk Warning: Surrounding this event, there are still some data and claims that remain to be verified in the market, including disputes over the specific scale of single-day increases. In the absence of authoritative and consistent data confirmation, making aggressive decisions to increase or decrease positions based on a single narrative like "the increase in gold's market value on a certain day equals the market value of one Bitcoin" may amplify the risks brought by cognitive biases. Maintaining a cautious verification of data sources is more important than betting on a specific extreme number itself.
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。
