Back during the Russia-Ukraine war, I mentioned an example to discuss whether BTC is a risk asset or a safe-haven asset. I even wrote a tweet about it before. Link: https://(x.com)/PhyrexNi/status/1933515215678943319?s=20 The main point was that although gold is considered a safe-haven asset, physical gold or gold contracts/options that are only traded domestically can be quite difficult to carry or liquidate during geopolitical conflicts. This time in Dubai, even though gold discounts are very low, the same issue arises. When people need to flee their country, large amounts of gold can't be directly carried away. So, they either convert it into currency like USD or into crypto assets like BTC or USDC. Of course, Wu Ge's point about rising holding costs during geopolitical conflicts is also valid. Overall, gold's safe-haven status is based on its value, but its portability is poor. On the other hand, crypto assets have stronger portability and privacy. In normal times, crypto is definitely a risk asset. But when settlement risks arise, BTC is easier to carry and settle, whereas gold's portability and cross-border delivery are much more troublesome. That's why gold-backed stablecoins or crypto gold are becoming popular now—they essentially bypass the "local gold settlement system." Bitget VIP, lower fees, bigger perks!