War scenarios do not offer definitive narratives. Markets typically do two things at once. They seek safety and reassess the world once the initial shock is over. Bitcoin is right at the core of that change.
Therefore, 'WW3 trade' is not a single bet but a series of events. In the initial hours, Bitcoin often behaves like a higher-risk asset. In the following weeks, Bitcoin may begin to function as a transferable, censorship-resistant asset, depending on governments' subsequent actions.
Are the fears of World War 3 real at the moment?
Due to the prevailing geopolitical tightening, the possibility of a third world war is being discussed increasingly. Some even say we are living in a world war, but it looks very different from 90 years ago.
In recent weeks, several crisis points have narrowed the margin of error.
The European security discussion has shifted from theories to practical planning. Authorities have discussed post-war security guarantees around Ukraine, which Russia has historically viewed as a red line.
In the Indo-Pacific region, Chinese military exercises around Taiwan increasingly resemble blockade drills. A blockade-type crisis can shake markets without a full-scale attack when maritime traffic is disrupted or an incident occurs at sea.
Additionally, the expanding role of the United States. President Trump has claimed to be practically 'leading Venezuela' by taking over from its president in his home.
Additionally, the US government is now discussing the purchase of Greenland, which is part of Denmark and the EU.
Additionally, the enforcement of economic sanctions, riskier military signals, and more straightforward geopolitical communication are involved. Combining these factors creates an environment where a single mistake can trigger new events.
This is how crises connect to each other.
What does WW3 mean in this model?
This analysis addresses 'World War Three' as a specific threshold.
Direct, prolonged conflict between nuclear-armed countries and
Expansion into multiple regions (Europe and the Indo-Pacific is the clearest path).
Definition is important because markets react differently to local crises compared to multidimensional confrontations.
How major assets behave during war
The greatest lesson from historical crises is structural: Markets sell first due to uncertainty and then respond to policy solutions.
Stocks often drop in the initial shock, but can recover as the situation clarifies, even with the war continuing. According to new research, 'clarity' in the markets may mean more than the conflict itself, as investors stop guessing and start pricing in information.
The exception is when war causes a permanent macroeconomic change: energy crisis, persistent inflation, rationing, or deep recession. In such cases, stocks may suffer longer.
Gold
Gold has a long history of rising during fears. On the other hand, it often loses achieved gains when the risk premium associated with war disappears and politics becomes predictable.
The strength of gold is clear: it has no issuer risk. The weakness, however, is that it competes with real yields. When real yields rise, gold typically comes under pressure.
Silver
Silver behaves like a hybrid. Its price may rise alongside gold as a safe haven but then swing wildly as industrial demand influences it. Silver is more of a volatility amplifier than a pure safe haven.
Oil and energy
When crises threaten supply routes, energy becomes an important macro driver. The rise in oil prices can quickly alter inflation expectations.
This forces central banks to choose between growth and inflation management. This ultimately resolves the movements of other markets.
Bitcoin in World War: bulls or bears?
Bitcoin does not have a single clear role in war. It has two sides that compete with each other:
Liquidity risk Bitcoin: behaves like a high-beta technology asset during the deleveraging phase.
Transferability Bitcoin: behaves as a censorship-resistant, limitless asset as capital controls and currency pressures increase.
Which is dominant depends on the phase.
Phase 1: shock week
This is the phase of forced selling. Investors are gathering cash. Risk management reduces leverage. Correlations increase.
At this stage, Bitcoin typically trades according to liquidity risk. It may drop alongside stocks, especially if derivative positions are full or stablecoin liquidity weakens.
Gold often receives the first safety-seeking buying move. The US dollar invariably strengthens. Credit margins widen.
Phase 2: stabilization attempt
Markets stop asking 'what just happened?' and begin to ponder 'what will policy do next?'
Right at this point, Bitcoin may begin to decouple.
If central banks and governments respond by adding liquidity, with support packages or stimulus, Bitcoin often recovers alongside risk assets.
If decision-makers tighten controls—capital controls, banking systems, or crypto entry routes—Bitcoin's recovery will be uneven, and volatility will increase, as will regional fragmentation.
Phase 3: prolonged conflict
At this stage, the conflict becomes a macroeconomic era. At that point, Bitcoin's development depends on four factors:
Dollar liquidity: tight USD conditions weaken Bitcoin. Looser conditions support it.
Real yields: rising real yields pressure Bitcoin and gold. Falling real yields support both.
Capital controls and sanctions: increase demand for transferability but may also restrict availability.
Infrastructure reliability: Bitcoin needs electricity, internet connectivity, and functioning exchange routes.
At this stage, 'Bitcoin as digital gold' may materialize, but it cannot be guaranteed. It requires functioning routes and an environment where access is not suppressed.
The table below summarizes a simplified stress level that readers can use. It outlines directional expectations across three phases in two WW3-style scenarios: Europe-led and Taiwan-led.
The main question is uncomfortable but useful: Bitcoin's weakest moment is in the first phase. The best moment is often later—if policy and technical routes allow it.
What is most likely to determine the outcome for Bitcoin?
The real yield era
Bitcoin often struggles when real yields rise and USD liquidity tightens. War can push rates down (fear of recession, easing) or up (inflation shock, public finance pressure).
What matters is which of these ultimately materializes—not the news headlines.
Rails problem
Bitcoin may be valuable but simultaneously unusable for some participants.
If governments restrict access to exchanges, bank steps, or stablecoin redemptions, Bitcoin may become more volatile, not more stable.
The Bitcoin network can operate while individuals find it difficult to move capital through regulated bottlenecks.
Capital controls and currency pressure
This is the environment where Bitcoin's transferability becomes more than just a slogan.
If the conflict expands sanctions, restricts cross-border transfers, or disrupts local currencies, the demand for transferable value increases. This supports Bitcoin's medium-term outlook, even if the first week looks bleak.
Energy shock versus growth shock
Rising oil prices and persistent inflation can be toxic to risk assets. Slowing growth and rapid easing can support them.
War can cause both. Markets price in the macroeconomic path, not the moral story.
Simple forecasting structure
Instead of asking 'Will Bitcoin pump or crash during World War 3?', it's worth considering three sequential questions:
Will there be a surprise shock event that forces deleveraging? If yes, expect Bitcoin to drop first.
Will policy respond by adding liquidity and support packages? If yes, Bitcoin often recovers faster than many traditional assets.
Are capital controls and sanctions increasing, but routes remain accessible? If yes, Bitcoin's transferability premium may grow over time.
This framework explains why Bitcoin can crash dramatically on the first day and still appear resilient six months later.
Summary
A shock from a third world war or a major geopolitical crisis would likely hit Bitcoin first. Liquidity crises affect markets in this way. However, what happens next is more important.
Bitcoin's medium-term development during a major geopolitical conflict depends on whether the world shifts to easier monetary policies, tighter regulations, and decentralized finance.
Such a situation can reinforce the position of movable, scarce assets while also making them highly volatile.
If readers want to remember one sentence: Bitcoin is unlikely to start a war as 'digital gold', but in long-lasting conflicts, it may begin to be regarded as such an asset.