“Gold is up $50, Bitcoin is down 4%.” With that short line, veteran economist and gold advocate Peter Schiff once again ignited a fierce debate over whether Bitcoin deserves its reputation as “digital gold” and a safe-haven asset.
Over the latest bout of macro uncertainty, investors flocked back to the oldest defensive plays in the market. Gold and silver both ripped to new highs: gold pushed past $5,175 per ounce, while silver advanced above $87. At the very same time, Bitcoin moved sharply in the opposite direction, tumbling more than 5% and slipping under the psychologically important $65,000 level.
In theory, periods of stress are when safe-haven assets are supposed to shine. Yet instead of proving its store-of-value narrative, Bitcoin behaved more like a high-beta technology stock, underperforming precisely when risk-off demand spiked. That divergence is what Schiff seized on: he argued that the widening gap between precious metals and crypto is not just a short-term anomaly, but a sign that long-term capital prefers tangible assets over digital ones.
Schiff’s criticism focused on the idea that Bitcoin, priced in dollars, can look deceptively stable, while quietly bleeding value against hard assets. His point was amplified by a striking set of ratios. At the peak in December 2024, a single Bitcoin could buy roughly 38 ounces of gold. By February 2026, that number had collapsed to about 13 ounces. In other words, over just a bit more than a year, Bitcoin lost over 62% of its purchasing power relative to gold.
The same pattern shows up even more dramatically when comparing Bitcoin to silver. Since May 2025, Bitcoin’s value measured in ounces of silver has dropped by more than 70%. Despite Bitcoin’s price managing to look relatively resilient in dollar terms, these cross-asset ratios reveal a deep erosion of its real-world buying power when benchmarked against traditional safe-haven metals.
Market capitalization rankings tell a similar story. Gold and silver now sit firmly in the top two spots among global assets by total market value, reflecting intense demand from institutions and conservative investors. Bitcoin, once celebrated as a potential rival to gold, has slipped to around 13th place, now trailing a host of conventional companies and physical assets that do not share its volatility or regulatory uncertainty.
This shift marks a notable break from the strong trend seen throughout 2024 and 2025, when Bitcoin was widely discussed as a credible hedge against inflation and monetary debasement. During that period, loose monetary policy, rising prices, and growing distrust in fiat currencies helped fuel narratives that Bitcoin could coexist with, or even eventually replace, gold as the primary store of value for the digital age.
Supporters of Bitcoin were quick to counter Schiff’s criticism by arguing that he is cherry-picking a bad week in an otherwise exceptional multi-year performance. They pointed out that while Schiff highlights a 4% daily drop, he rarely acknowledges that Bitcoin has at times rallied hundreds of percent within a single year. From this vantage point, short-term red candles are framed as noise in a larger, still-intact uptrend.
One recurring defense from Bitcoin advocates is the “zoom out” argument: over decades, they claim, Bitcoin’s fixed supply and growing adoption will matter more than interim volatility. To them, price drawdowns against gold or silver in a specific macro environment do not invalidate the fundamental thesis. Instead, they view such periods as part of the cyclical nature of a young, still-maturing asset class, prone to violent swings as liquidity, regulation, and investor sentiment evolve.
Yet for many traditional finance participants, behavior during stress events is precisely what defines a safe haven. An asset that drops when fear rises-especially while classic havens surge-raises serious questions about its role in a defensive portfolio. The latest price action has therefore reinforced the perception, in traditional circles, that Bitcoin remains more aligned with speculative growth assets than with defensive ones like gold and silver.
The divergence also reflects how different types of investors approach risk. Precious metals often attract capital from institutions, pension funds, and conservative allocators seeking long-term capital preservation. Bitcoin, despite growing institutional interest, still draws a significant share of its volume from traders and high-risk speculators. That structure can exacerbate downside pressure when sentiment flips, because leveraged positions unwind rapidly and margin calls force additional selling.
Macro conditions are another crucial piece of the puzzle. Rising real yields, shifting expectations around interest rate cuts, and geopolitical tensions can all drive flows into metals while simultaneously tightening liquidity for speculative assets. If markets believe central banks are less likely to deliver aggressive easing, the narrative that Bitcoin will benefit from endless money printing weakens, while gold’s centuries-old status as a hedge against both inflation and systemic risk remains intact.
At the same time, it would be premature to declare the Bitcoin-safe-haven story dead. Some analysts argue that the current low Bitcoin-to-gold ratio may actually represent a long-term accumulation opportunity. From this perspective, Bitcoin is undervalued compared to gold, especially if one believes that digital-native store-of-value assets will capture a larger slice of global wealth over the coming decades. The argument hinges on the idea that adoption is still in its early innings and that macro cycles will continue to offer multiple entry points.
There is also a structural difference in how these assets behave intraday. Gold and silver are heavily influenced by central bank activity, jewelry demand, and industrial usage, which can lend a layer of fundamental support during downturns. Bitcoin, by contrast, trades 24/7 and is heavily driven by derivatives, funding rates, and speculative positioning. This can cause more violent short-term moves, which look alarming when compared directly with the relatively steadier climb of metals in a panic-driven rally.
Another nuance lies in time horizons. Over a multi-year period, Bitcoin has historically outperformed most traditional assets, including gold, despite extreme volatility. For investors with long-term conviction, a temporary loss of ground to metals may not be a decisive factor. For traders and institutions measured quarter-to-quarter, however, such underperformance can be enough to reduce exposure, particularly when risk committees demand more predictable behavior from store-of-value holdings.
The regulatory landscape further complicates the picture. Bitcoin’s safe-haven narrative depends partly on its censorship resistance and decentralized architecture. Yet in practice, institutional adoption tends to flow through highly regulated channels: spot exchange-traded products, custodial solutions, and centralized trading venues. Any tightening of rules, taxation changes, or legal uncertainty can reduce demand in ways that gold and silver-well-established within regulatory frameworks-simply do not face to the same extent.
It is also worth considering how narratives themselves influence price. Once a critical mass of investors starts to question Bitcoin’s safe-haven role, positioning can shift toward metals, reinforcing the very trend that sparked those doubts. Self-fulfilling feedback loops are common in financial markets, especially for assets whose value is partly driven by collective belief. For Bitcoin to reclaim that narrative, it would likely need to demonstrate resilience in a future crisis-holding or rising while risk assets fall and metals climb.
For now, capital flows suggest a clear preference: when fear rises, more money is reaching for gold and silver than for crypto. Until Bitcoin can decouple from risk-on sentiment and prove that it can preserve value during prolonged turbulence, traditional finance is likely to keep classifying it closer to speculative tech than to defensive assets.
Still, the story is far from over. A shift in monetary policy, renewed inflation fears, or a breakdown in trust in traditional banking systems could all breathe new life into Bitcoin’s safe-haven pitch. History shows that narratives in markets are not static; they evolve as conditions change, new products appear, and fresh generations of investors enter the arena with different assumptions and risk appetites.
In the meantime, the contrast highlighted by Schiff-gold up $50, Bitcoin down 4%-serves as a powerful snapshot of the growing divide between crypto and traditional safe havens. Behind relatively stable dollar prices, Bitcoin is quietly losing ground against the very assets it once aimed to replace as the ultimate store of value. Whether that is a temporary mispricing or a sign of a deeper shift in long-term confidence will depend on how Bitcoin behaves in the next big bout of global uncertainty.
Nothing in this analysis should be interpreted as financial advice. Cryptocurrencies and metals alike carry significant risks, and anyone considering exposure should carefully evaluate their own financial situation, risk tolerance, and investment horizon before making decisions.