Bitcoin in the history books: Why does it fail as a safe haven compared to gold?

Over the past few weeks, financial markets have witnessed a perplexing phenomenon that questions years of narrative about Bitcoin as a digital store of value asset. While Bitcoin has experienced a 6.6% decline since mid-January, gold has gained an accumulated 8.6%, reaching highs near $5,000 per ounce. This contrast reveals an uncomfortable truth: Bitcoin behaves less like the promised “digital gold” and more like a volatile asset that investors turn to for liquidity during crises.

The fundamental question is not new—history books on ancient currencies and their enduring value already taught us that truly safe assets withstand selling pressure. Apparently, Bitcoin has not learned that lesson.

The Paradox of Value: When Liquidity Betrays Digital Assets

The mystery is resolved by analyzing how each asset functions within portfolios during turbulent periods. Bitcoin, despite having deep liquidity and being tradable 24 hours a day, paradoxically becomes the first thing investors sell when they need immediate cash.

“In times of tension and uncertainty, the preference for liquidity dominates, and this dynamic affects Bitcoin much more severely than gold,” said Greg Cipolaro, NYDIG Global Head of Research, in his recent analysis. “Despite being liquid for its size, Bitcoin remains more volatile and is sold reflexively as leverage unwinds.”

Conversely, gold maintains its demand even during market panics. Central banks continue accumulating physical metal at record levels, generating a structural demand that supports prices. Bitcoin faces the opposite dynamic: long-term holders are selling. On-chain data shows that old coins—metaphorically speaking—are being transferred to exchanges, suggesting a persistent flow of sales that weakens price support.

Lessons from Ancient Currencies: Gold vs. Bitcoin in Times of Crisis

Financial history provides a clear lesson on true reserve assets. Gold has functioned for centuries as a safe haven during conflicts, inflation, and monetary collapses. Its value has remained relatively stable across different economic cycles.

Theoretically, Bitcoin should shine in scenarios of geopolitical uncertainty. It is censorship-resistant money, with a fixed supply scheduled, features that would make it superior during fiat currency depreciation. However, in practice, it has become the first asset investors liquidate when conditions worsen.

Recent global turbulence—driven by tariff threats and speculation about geopolitical tensions in the Arctic—demonstrated this fragility. Markets retreated and volatility spiked. Bitcoin fell while gold rose, suggesting that investors still prefer tangible, proven assets when uncertainty is immediate, not theoretical.

Short-term versus Long-term: Understanding Bitcoin’s True Value

This is where the real analysis of differentiated value resides. Cipolaro added crucial context: “Gold excels in moments of immediate loss of confidence, risk of war, and fiat currency devaluation that do not imply total systemic breakdown. In contrast, Bitcoin is better designed to hedge against long-term monetary disorder and slow erosion of trust that develops over years, not weeks.”

This nuance is fundamental. Bitcoin is not an asset for episodic crises but for long-term monetary system depreciation. Gold is the coverage for immediate emergencies. In today’s world, where investors perceive risks as “dangerous but not yet fundamental,” gold maintains its supremacy as a short-term refuge.

Sentiment indicators confirm this dynamic. The Gold Fear and Greed Index from JM Bullion signals extreme optimism in precious metals, while similar indicators in cryptocurrencies remain stuck in fear. Bitcoin trades as a high-risk asset while investors seeking genuine store of value prefer physical gold and silver.

The Role of Major Holders in the Performance Gap

Structural demand explains much of the price divergence. Central banks have been consistently buying gold, driving steady demand that supports prices. This institutional holder effect does not exist in Bitcoin, where traditional holders are precisely selling and transferring positions to exchanges.

This capital behavior is the opposite of what Bitcoin would need to reaffirm its narrative as a digital reserve asset. While gold attracts institutional accumulation, Bitcoin attracts liquidation during turbulence, completely reversing the value equation its proponents promised.

The next generation of investors must understand a truth already documented by history books on ancient currencies and their value: a safe haven asset is not defined by what it promises but by what it does when tough times arrive. Until Bitcoin proves it can withstand selling pressure like gold does, its position as an alternative reserve asset will remain more aspirational than real.