Tiger Research: Can Bitcoin, which plummeted amid geopolitical crises, still be called "Digital Gold"?

This report was written by Tiger Research. After the Iranian airstrike incident in February 2026, gold prices rose while Bitcoin prices plummeted. Can we still believe that Bitcoin is “digital gold”? We will explore the conditions Bitcoin must meet to become the “next gold.”

Key Points

• Every geopolitical crisis causes gold prices to rise and Bitcoin prices to fall. After six tests, the claim of “digital gold” has never been confirmed by data.
• Countries accumulate gold but exclude Bitcoin from reserves. For investors, Bitcoin has asymmetries: it tends to fall with stocks but does not rise with them. Three structural asymmetries prevent Bitcoin from gaining safe-haven status: excess derivatives (market structure), dominance of leveraged traders (participant composition), and lack of repeated behavioral records (behavioral accumulation).
• Bitcoin is not a safe-haven asset, but it is a “crisis-useful asset” that can indeed play a role during border closures and bank failures.
• If these three asymmetries diminish, Bitcoin may no longer be a copy of gold but could become a new “next-generation gold.” Intergenerational shifts and widespread algorithm use are key factors that could accelerate this process.

1. Is Bitcoin Truly “Digital Gold”?

On February 28, 2026, the US and Israel launched airstrikes against Iran. Immediately after the operation was announced, gold prices surged. In contrast, Bitcoin prices dropped sharply to $63,000 on that day, then recovered within the same day.

The same event triggered completely opposite reactions.

During geopolitical shocks like wars, Bitcoin’s movements differ from gold.

Bitcoin often drops initially but quickly rebounds; however, chain reactions caused by forced liquidations of leveraged traders can lead to larger declines. During the Iran-Israel conflict, Bitcoin’s intraday drop reached 9.3%, and during the Ukraine war, it fell by 7.6%. In stark contrast, gold prices rose during the same periods.

Bitcoin tends to be the first asset to fall during crises. Can we still call it “digital gold”?

2. Bitcoin Is Not “Digital Gold” for Countries or Investors.

Bitcoin was not originally designed to be “digital gold.” Satoshi Nakamoto’s 2008 white paper titled “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System” was intended as a transfer mechanism, not a store of value.

The modern concept of “digital gold” gained popularity during the zero-interest-rate and quantitative easing era starting in 2020. As concerns about currency devaluation peaked, Bitcoin attracted attention as a store of value. However, in practice, neither countries nor investors have regarded Bitcoin as “digital gold.”

2.1. Sovereign Countries: Accumulating Gold but Not Bitcoin

Data from the World Gold Council shows that central banks worldwide have never stopped buying gold annually. Yet, no major central bank has included Bitcoin in its total reserves.

Some might argue that the US officially established a “Strategic Bitcoin Reserve” via executive order in March 2025. The document even states that “Bitcoin is often called ‘digital gold’.” But the details tell a different story. The reserve only includes assets seized through criminal and civil forfeiture procedures. The government is not purchasing new Bitcoin but merely holding confiscated Bitcoin, not selling it.

Notably, as US Treasury bonds become less attractive, Europe and China are actively buying gold, but Bitcoin has not yet been listed as an alternative reserve asset.

2.2. Investors: Falling When Stocks Fall, Not Rising When Stocks Rise

The second half of 2025 was critical. The Nasdaq hit a record high, while Bitcoin plummeted over 30% from its October peak of $125,000. The two assets started diverging.

But the real issue is the direction of this divergence. Bitcoin falls along with stocks during downturns but does not rise with them during rallies. For investors, this is the worst combination. Holding an asset that risks decline while missing out on gains makes little sense. Bitcoin is far from a safe haven; even as a risk asset, its appeal has been questioned.

3. Why Bitcoin Has Failed to Become “Digital Gold”

Safe-haven assets are not just assets that increase in price. From an academic perspective, they are assets whose correlation with other assets drops to zero or becomes negative during extreme economic downturns. The key question is whether their response during crises is predictable. By this standard, the gap between gold and Bitcoin is evident.

Gold meets all four criteria. Bitcoin clearly only meets one: fixed supply. Liquidity is conditional. The other two criteria are unmet. These three structural asymmetries explain the gap.

• Market structure asymmetry: Physical demand supports gold’s price floor, and its futures leverage ratio is low. Bitcoin’s derivatives trading volume is about 6.5 times its spot volume, and its market operates 24/7, making it often the first asset sold during crises.
• Participant asymmetry: Gold buyers during crises are patient capital—central banks, pension funds, sovereign wealth funds. Bitcoin’s main participants are leveraged traders and hedge funds, which tend to withdraw first during crises.
• Behavioral accumulation asymmetry: The pattern of “buying gold during crises” has repeated for decades, becoming a fixed behavior. Bitcoin needs time to earn similar trust.

4. Unsafe but Proven Useful

In terms of safety, Bitcoin is hard to call “digital gold.” But its role during crises is undeniable.

After the Russia-Ukraine war in 2022, Ukraine’s central bank immediately restricted electronic transfers and ATM withdrawals. Bank branches closed, and people couldn’t access their deposits. Some refugees carried USB drives with Bitcoin mnemonic phrases across borders. Reports indicate that upon reaching Poland, they exchanged Bitcoin at ATMs or P2P platforms for local currency to cover living expenses.

The UNHCR further distributed stablecoins like USDC to displaced persons and launched a program allowing them to convert these at remittance outlets into local currency. During the 2026 “Epic Firestorm Operation,” capital outflows from Iran’s largest crypto exchange, Nobitex, surged by 700% immediately after the airstrikes.

These cases show that people turn to Bitcoin not because it is a safe-haven asset, but because it can function when the financial system fails.

In finance, “safe-haven assets” are assets that maintain stable prices during crises. This differs from assets that can be used during crises. Bitcoin clearly provides transfer and remittance functions during wartime, but it cannot guarantee its own price. What truly makes an asset a safe haven is not utility but predictable price behavior. Bitcoin has the former but cannot guarantee the latter.

5. The “Next-Generation Gold” Scenario for Bitcoin

In every crisis, Bitcoin’s movements are opposite to gold. Neither countries nor investors currently see it as “digital gold.” However, in regions with border closures and bank shutdowns, Bitcoin’s practicality cannot be ignored. Given this potential, if these three asymmetries diminish, the path to “next-generation gold” could open.

5.1. Market Structure Shift

Derivatives trading volume reaching 6.5 times spot volume triggers chain reactions of selling during crises. Recently, open interest in futures has declined, and price discovery signals are shifting toward spot and ETFs. But the real test is whether leverage will rebuild in the next bull market.

5.2. Participant Shift

After the approval of spot ETFs in 2024, institutional capital flooded in, making Bitcoin a mainstream financial asset. But this creates a paradox: the more institutional investors include Bitcoin in their portfolios, the more it tends to be sold along with stocks during risk-off periods. Increased accessibility has reduced its independent price movements—this is the financialization paradox.

Gold ETFs have also become mainstream, yet during crises, gold’s movement often opposes stocks because “crisis buying” has been a pattern for over half a century. To break this paradox, participant composition must shift from leveraged traders to patient capital.

An often-overlooked variable is intergenerational change. When Generation Z begins inheriting and managing real wealth, gold may still be their parents’ safe haven. For this generation, the first investment account is not a securities account but a crypto exchange. For those whose first exposure to assets is Bitcoin, during crises, they may instinctively choose Bitcoin over gold. This shift in participants may not originate from institutional decisions but from generational behavioral changes.

5.3. Behavioral Accumulation Shift

After Nixon’s shock, the “crisis buying” pattern for gold took about 50 years to establish. Will Bitcoin need the same amount of time? Not necessarily. The recent US-Iran conflict is the sixth test, and the pattern repeats: sharp decline during the event, then rebound. As this pattern repeats, confidence grows that “it will fall but always rebound.”

A more critical variable is algorithms. Today, a large portion of Bitcoin trading volume comes from AI agents and algorithmic trading. If the “buy Bitcoin during crises” strategy is embedded into these algorithms, this pattern could form without human behavioral accumulation. In that case, trust would be built into code before humans.

Bitcoin is not yet “digital gold.” But if market structure, participant composition, and behavioral patterns shift based on its proven utility, it could become the “next gold.” It would not be a copy of gold but the birth of a new category.