Copper and Gold Surge While Bitcoin Struggles with Quantum Risks

The latest decline in Bitcoin prices has sparked a new debate about what truly drives the weak performance of this digital asset. Meanwhile, traditional commodities such as copper, gold, and silver are showing strong bullish momentum, reflecting a shift in investor preferences toward tangible assets. This contrast clearly illustrates how the market currently assesses various investment instruments in the face of global macroeconomic uncertainty.

Commodity Prices Surge Drastically, Bitcoin Lagging in the Downturn Zone

In the last trading session, gold hit a new all-time high at $4,930 per ounce, rising 1.7%, while silver exceeded expectations with a 3.7% increase to $96 per ounce. Copper price data also shows a positive trend as part of a broader commodity rally, reflecting strong industrial demand and inflation expectations. Conversely, Bitcoin lost significant momentum and fell back to $88.12K according to recent data, representing a 2.4% decrease in the last 24 hours and about 30% below its previous peak in early October.

This performance disparity becomes even more pronounced when looking at the performance since Trump’s victory in November 2024: while silver appreciated 205%, gold rose 83%, the Nasdaq Technology Index corrected 24%, and the S&P 500 increased 17.6%, Bitcoin actually declined 2.6%. This phenomenon confirms that physical commodity prices continue to find large institutional buyers, while digital currencies face pressure from multiple directions.

Stagnation or Selling Pressure? The Narrative Battle in the Crypto Market

Questions about what truly causes Bitcoin’s weakness have sparked intense debate among market stakeholders. Nic Carter, partner at Castle Island Ventures, introduces a new narrative claiming that Bitcoin’s “mysterious” poor performance is caused by fears of quantum computing, calling it “the only story that matters this year.”

However, this perspective has been challenged by others in the analytics community. @Checkmatey, an on-chain analyst at Checkonchain, dismisses the quantum theory with a sharp analogy: attributing sideways price action to quantum fears is akin to “blaming market manipulation over red candles” or exchange balances for the rally. According to him, markets move based on supply and liquidity positions, not on fictional scientific risks.

A similar view comes from Vijay Boyapati, a prominent Bitcoin investor and author: “The real explanation is the large supply release when we hit the psychological level of 100k for many whales.” This analysis emphasizes that conventional selling pressure—rather than esoteric technological concerns—explains short-term price movements. On-chain data supports this narrative, showing that large holders are taking profits at critical price levels while new supply continues to enter the market.

Quantum Threat: Real Risk or Market Horror Story?

Quantum computing has long been discussed as a theoretical risk to Bitcoin’s cryptographic foundations. Advanced machines running algorithms like Shor’s could theoretically break elliptic curve cryptography protecting digital wallets. However, the dominant view among Bitcoin developers is that practical implementation of such machines still requires decades.

Bitcoin’s technical leadership remains firm on this position. Adam Back, co-founder of Blockstream, has described the threat as extremely unlikely, noting that even in the worst-case scenario, it would not cause widespread or direct loss of funds across the network without available solutions. Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 360 (BIP-360) has outlined a phased migration path if needed, introducing quantum-resistant address formats.

The timeline for adapting to quantum threats is measured in years, not market cycles, making it an unlikely explanation for short-term price movements. While some traditional finance figures—such as Christopher Wood of Jefferies, who recently removed Bitcoin from his model portfolio due to quantum computing concerns—have raised alarms, the real challenge is not whether Bitcoin can adapt, but how long such updates would take if they ever become necessary.

Commodity Performance Versus Crypto: Structural Demand for Gold versus Bitcoin Volatility

A broader trend reveals interesting facts about global capital allocation preferences. Gold continues to receive steady demand from sovereign nations purchasing precious metals as substitutes for debt instruments, a trend that began after the 2008 financial crisis and accelerated after February 2022. Copper prices, as an indicator of global economic health and industrial demand, also remain strong amid optimism about economic growth.

In contrast, Bitcoin is traded like a high-beta risk asset, experiencing selling pressure from HODLers in 2025 while competition from the “tangible asset” narrative continues to grow. Investors seeking store of value prefer physical gold and silver over digital tokens, reflecting concerns about volatility and regulatory uncertainty.

Sentiment indicators tell a clear story: while the Fear & Greed Index for gold shows extreme optimism for the precious metal, similar indicators in the crypto market remain trapped in fear. This disparity underscores that, in this era, structural demand for real commodities and hedging assets still dominates global market sentiment compared to investments in digital currencies, which are still viewed as speculative instruments with higher risks.