Why Bitcoin failed to act as safe-haven as gold under pressure

In recent times of heightened global uncertainty, Bitcoin has shown disappointing characteristics. From January 18, 2026, the price of Bitcoin fell by 6.6% amid rising geopolitical tensions and frequent tariff threats, while gold rose by 8.6% during the same period, reaching a new high of nearly $5,000. This stark contrast exposes an embarrassing truth: as “digital gold,” Bitcoin behaves more like a fast ATM than a real store of value in the face of девальвація and market panic.

Differences in the performance of two assets under market pressure

Geopolitical instability often drives up demand for safe-haven assets. However, in this incident, Bitcoin failed to meet expectations. Since mid-January, Bitcoin has been the target of a sell-off after Trump’s remarks about imposing tariffs on NATO allies and possible military action in the Arctic caused market volatility.

In contrast, gold has shown the performance that traditional safe-haven assets should have. This difference is not accidental, but reflects the fundamental difference in the status of the two types of assets in investor psychology. When the market panics, investors’ desire for liquidity overrides all other considerations.

The Liquidity Trap: Why Bitcoin Became a “Bank ATM”

Bitcoin’s high liquidity and 24-hour trading characteristics are seen as advantages in normal markets but become disadvantages during periods of stress. Greg Чіполаро, global head of research at NYDIG, pointed out that this is exactly the problem: in a risk-averse environment, liquidity is prioritized, and Bitcoin has become the preferred financing tool for investors due to its ease of trading and quick monetization.

“When pressure and uncertainty arise, liquidity priorities rise sharply, which hits Bitcoin much harder than gold,” Чіполаро explained, “Although Bitcoin is liquid relative to its size, it is still more prone to reflex selling during credit leverage reductions.” In a risk-averse environment, Bitcoin is often used to raise funds quickly, reduce the Portfolio Value at Risk Indicator (VAR), and reduce risk, regardless of its long-term value proposition. "

This behavior is clearly visible in on-chain data. According to the analysis, long-term holders continue to transfer Bitcoin to exchanges, indicating a steady selling flow. This “seller oversupply” weakens price support.

Central Bank Choice: Supply and demand imbalance between gold hoarding and Bitcoin selling

The behavior of central banks and large institutions further exacerbates the divergence between the two assets. Central banks around the world are hoarding gold at a record pace, creating strong structural demand. This has created a positive feedback: central bank demand has pushed up gold prices, further attracting institutional investors.

The opposite is true for Bitcoin. Long-term holders – the group that should theoretically have the most confidence in the price – are continuing to sell instead. The lack of consistent demand from large institutional buyers leaves Bitcoin without a price defense line during market pressures.

The time dimension determines the hedging strategy: short-term panic vs. long-term девальвація

How the market assesses current risks is crucial. This geopolitical trouble is generally seen as a short-term event – tariff disputes, policy threats, risk of near-term conflict. In this context, gold is a classic safe-haven option that has been used as a hedge against such risks for decades.

Bitcoin is suitable for different risk scenarios. According to Чіполаро, Bitcoin is better suited to hedge against long-term stresses - namely unresolved and multi-year systemic risks such as the gradual depreciation of fiat currencies and the sovereign debt crisis. “Gold excels in the face of direct loss of trust, war risks, and unsystematic involvement,” he noted, “while Bitcoin is better suited to hedge against long-term monetary turmoil and geopolitical panic that has unfolded for years.” "

In short, gold remains dominant when the market perceives risks as an immediate threat but has not yet shaken the basic system. Bitcoin’s long-term value promise will only be fully recognized when девальвація becomes a slow but persistent trend, with the risk of system collapse accumulating year after year.

Market status and outlook

As of January 29, the price of Bitcoin is around the $84,000 level, with a 24-hour decline of -6.23%. Crypto-related stocks also continued to be under pressure after sustained pressure in January. Spot trading volume for crypto assets has also declined significantly, falling to $90 billion from $1.7 trillion last year, reflecting cautious investor sentiment.

However, this short-term pressure should not overshadow Bitcoin’s long-term logic. Bitcoin miners who choose to shift their operations to AI infrastructure are continuing to reap better returns, indicating that market participants remain confident in technological upgrades and value creation. The phenomenon of Bitcoin becoming a “bank ATM” is cyclical and ultimately depends on when the pressure evolves into a systemic девальвація threat. When that moment comes, Bitcoin’s previously seen disadvantage — its independence from the traditional financial system — will be its greatest advantage.