Tiger Research: Can Bitcoin, Plunging Amid Geopolitical Crisis, Still Be Called "Digital Gold"?

This report is authored by Tiger Research. In February 2026, following the Iran airstrike incident, gold prices rose while Bitcoin prices plummeted. Can we still believe Bitcoin is "digital gold"? We will explore the conditions Bitcoin must meet to become the "next gold."

Key Takeaways

• In every geopolitical crisis, gold prices rise while Bitcoin prices fall. After six tests, the "digital gold" narrative has never been confirmed by data.
• Countries hoard gold but exclude Bitcoin from their reserves. For investors, Bitcoin exhibits asymmetry: it falls with stocks but does not rise with them. Three structural asymmetries prevent Bitcoin from attaining safe-haven status: derivative excess (market structure), dominance of leveraged traders (participant composition), and lack of a repeated behavioral track record (behavioral accumulation).
• Bitcoin is not a safe-haven asset, but it is a "useful asset in a crisis," proving functional when borders close and banks fail.
• If these three major asymmetries narrow, Bitcoin may no longer be a replica of gold but could evolve into an entirely new category of "next-generation gold." Generational shift and the widespread application of algorithms are key factors that could accelerate this process.

1. Is Bitcoin Really "Digital Gold"?

On February 28, 2026, the US and Israel launched airstrikes against Iran. Immediately after the announcement, gold prices rose. In contrast, the Bitcoin price plummeted to $63,000 that day before recovering within 24 hours.

The same event, yet completely opposite reactions.

During geopolitical shocks like war, Bitcoin's trajectory differs from gold's.

Bitcoin often rebounds quickly after an initial drop, but the cascading effect of forced liquidations by leveraged traders can amplify the decline. During the Iran-Israel conflict, Bitcoin's intraday drop reached 9.3%; during the Ukraine war, it fell 7.6%. In stark contrast, gold prices rose during the same periods.

Bitcoin is often the first asset to fall when a crisis erupts. Can we truly still call it "digital gold"?

2. Bitcoin is Not "Digital Gold" for Nations or Investors.

Bitcoin was not originally designed to be "digital gold." Satoshi Nakamoto's 2008 whitepaper was titled "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System." Its starting point was as a transfer mechanism, not a store of value.

The "digital gold" concept as we know it today gained popularity during the 2020 zero-interest-rate and quantitative easing era. As fears of currency devaluation peaked, Bitcoin gained attention as a store of value. However, in practice, neither nations nor investors treat Bitcoin as "digital gold."

2.1. Sovereign Nations: Hoarding Gold, Not Considering Bitcoin

Data from the World Gold Council shows that central banks have never stopped buying gold year after year. Yet, no major central bank includes Bitcoin in its full reserve assets.

Some might counter that the US formally established a "Strategic Bitcoin Reserve" via executive order in March 2025. The order's text even noted that "Bitcoin is often referred to as 'digital gold'." But the details tell a different story. The reserve scope is limited to assets seized through criminal and civil forfeiture proceedings. The government is not purchasing new Bitcoin but merely holding seized Bitcoin instead of selling it.

Notably, as the appeal of US Treasury bonds wanes, Europe and China are actively buying gold, but Bitcoin has not yet made their list of alternatives.

2.2 Investors: Falls Together, Doesn't Rise Together

The second half of 2025 was crucial. The Nasdaq hit record highs, while Bitcoin plummeted over 30% from its October peak of $125,000. The two assets began to diverge.

But the real issue isn't the decoupling itself; it's the direction. Bitcoin falls when stocks fall but does not rise when stocks rise. For investors, this is the worst combination. There's no point in holding an asset that bears downside risk while missing upside gains. Bitcoin is far from a safe haven; even as a risk asset, its appeal is questionable.

3. Why Bitcoin Has Failed to Become "Digital Gold"

A safe-haven asset isn't merely one whose price rises. Academically, it refers to an asset whose correlation with other assets drops to zero or even turns negative during extreme economic downturns. The key question is whether its response in a crisis is predictable. Measured by this standard, the gap between gold and Bitcoin is evident.

Gold meets all four requirements. Bitcoin clearly meets only one: fixed supply. Liquidity is conditional. The other two requirements are not met. Three structural asymmetries can explain this gap.

• Market Structure Asymmetry: Gold's physical demand underpins a price floor, and its futures leverage is low. Bitcoin's derivative trading volume is about 6.5 times its spot volume, and its market trades 24/7, making it often the first asset sold off when a crisis hits.
• Participant Asymmetry: The buyers during a gold crisis are patient capital, such as central banks, pension funds, and sovereign wealth funds. The main participants in the Bitcoin market are leveraged traders and hedge funds—capital that is precisely the first to flee when a crisis erupts.
• Behavioral Accumulation Asymmetry: The behavioral pattern of "buy gold in a crisis" has repeated for decades, eventually becoming a fixed pattern. Bitcoin needs time to earn the same trust.

4. Not Safe, But Proven Useful

In terms of safety, it's hard to call Bitcoin "digital gold." But its utility in a crisis is undeniable.

After the Russia-Ukraine war broke out in 2022, Ukraine's central bank immediately restricted electronic transfers and limited ATM withdrawals. Bank branches closed, and people couldn't even access their deposits. Some refugees crossed the border carrying USB drives with Bitcoin seed phrases. Reports indicate that upon reaching Poland, they exchanged Bitcoin for local currency via Bitcoin ATMs or P2P transactions to cover living expenses.

The UN Refugee Agency went further, distributing the stablecoin USDC to displaced persons and running a program allowing them to exchange it for local currency at MoneyGram outlets. During the 2026 "Operation Epic Fury," capital outflows from Iran's largest crypto exchange, Nobitex, surged 700% immediately after the airstrikes.

These cases show people turn to Bitcoin not because it's a safe-haven asset, but because it functions when the financial system fails.

In finance, a "safe-haven asset" refers to one whose price remains stable during a crisis. This differs from an asset that can be used during a crisis. Bitcoin clearly provides functional value for transfer and remittance in wartime, but it cannot guarantee its own price. What constitutes a safe-haven asset is not utility but the predictability of price behavior. Bitcoin has the former but cannot guarantee the latter.

5. Bitcoin's "Next-Generation Gold" Scenario

In every crisis, Bitcoin's trajectory is the opposite of gold's. Neither nations nor investors see it as "digital gold." Yet, its utility in regions with closed borders and shuttered banks is undeniable. Given this potential, if these three major asymmetries narrow, the path to "next-generation gold" opens.

5.1 Market Structure Shift

Derivative trading volume being 6.5 times spot volume triggers cascading sell-offs in every crisis. Recently, futures open interest has declined, and price discovery mechanisms show signs of shifting towards spot and ETFs. But the real test is whether leverage will rebuild in the next bull market.

5.2. Participant Shift

After spot ETF approval in 2024, institutional capital flooded in, making Bitcoin a mainstream financial asset. But this creates a paradox: the more institutional investors include Bitcoin in portfolios, the more likely it is to be sold off alongside stocks during risk-off sentiment. Bitcoin's accessibility increased, but its independent price volatility disappeared. This is the financialization paradox.

Gold ETFs have also become mainstream, yet in crises, gold moves opposite to stocks because "buy in a crisis" is a pattern formed over half a century. To break this paradox, the participant composition must shift from leveraged traders to patient capital.

There's an easily overlooked variable here: generational shift. When Gen Z begins inheriting and managing real wealth, gold may still be their parents' safe haven. This generation's first investment account wasn't a securities account but a crypto exchange. For a generation whose first exposure to an asset was Bitcoin, they might instinctively choose Bitcoin over gold when a crisis hits. This participant shift may not start with institutional decisions but with generational behavioral change.

5.3 Behavioral Accumulation Shift

After the Nixon Shock, gold's "buy in a crisis" pattern took about 50 years to form. Does Bitcoin need the same time? Not necessarily. This US-Iran conflict was the sixth test, and the result was the same again: an intraday plunge, then a rebound. As this pattern repeats, belief grows that "it will fall, but it always rebounds."

A more important variable is algorithms. Today, a significant portion of Bitcoin trading volume comes from AI agents and algorithmic trading. If a "buy Bitcoin in a crisis" strategy is embedded in these algorithms, the pattern can form without the accumulation of human behavior. In this scenario, trust is built in code before it is in people.

Bitcoin is not "digital gold" today. But if market structure, participant composition, and behavioral accumulation patterns shift atop its proven utility, it has the potential to become "next-generation gold." It is not a replica of gold but the birth of an entirely new category.