Recently, a very interesting phenomenon has appeared in the market that has confused many people:
Gold$XAU and silver$XAG continue to rise, while Bitcoin$BTC is experiencing a pullback. Many people have begun to doubt whether the long-term logic has changed, and some even ask:
Is the era of Bitcoin coming to an end?
Has precious metals taken over everything again?
My view has not changed; it is completely consistent with my previous judgments. Over a sufficiently long time scale, the only assets that will continue to reach new highs are gold and Bitcoin.
Short-term divergence is not the end of the trend, but rather a process where capital paths are intentionally guided.
Why has silver been 'pushed to the forefront' at this stage? Historically, silver has never been an independent protagonist. It almost always appears after the initiation of the 'golden supercycle' and plays the roles of 'buffer' and 'diverter' at certain stages.
The reason is not complicated. When gold prices rise rapidly, it represents a concentrated release of global anxiety toward sovereign currencies and credit systems.
But the problem is that the party that masters the settlement power and financial order does not welcome the excessive and uncontrolled concentration of funds towards a single ultimate anchor.
Thus, silver becomes a natural alternative option:
Similarly precious metals
Also possessing historical consensus
However, status, symbolism, and ultimate attributes are always weaker than gold. It can absorb some hedging and speculative funds, but it will not truly shake gold's 'final position' in the system.
In other words, silver is more like a 'pressure relief valve' during the rise of gold, rather than the endpoint.
Then why is Bitcoin instead falling?
If gold is seen as the trust anchor of the real world, then Bitcoin is its counterpart in the digital world. However, the issue with Bitcoin has never been in long-term logic, but rather in:
It is younger, more volatile, and its price discovery relies more on marginal funding sentiment. When market risk appetite decreases and liquidity tightens at certain stages, Bitcoin often comes under pressure first, rather than benefiting. But this does not mean its role is diminished.
On the contrary, this kind of pullback often occurs under the same background:
People are rethinking what constitutes 'value that does not depend on others' promises.'
Gold leads, while Bitcoin lags temporarily, which is not in conflict. They are simply at different points in the same migration path. From a long-term perspective, only two types of 'trust assets' remain.
If you pull back the perspective, you will find an increasingly clear outline:
Gold is the consensus that time has precipitated in the material world, while Bitcoin is the trust built by computing power and algorithms in the digital world.
They have one thing in common:
They do not rely on any country, institution, or centralized commitment for existence.
Silver, other assets, and even many intermediate financial instruments may rise, rotate, and be pursued in the process, but they are more like paths rather than endpoints.
Divergence is the process; convergence is the result.
The divergence observed today is essentially:
From national credit → Consensus credit
From a single currency narrative → Multiple anchors coexisting
From short-term liquidity games → Long-term trust reconstruction
Silver takes on the role of 'diversion,' while gold and Bitcoin take on the role of 'anchoring the future.'
When this round of migration is truly completed, looking back at today’s price fluctuations may just be a piece of historical noise.
What truly matters is not who is rising or falling now, but which assets can be brought into the next order.
And my answer remains unchanged.