Until the outbreak of the Iran war, bitcoin moved sideways with no clear direction, while gold climbed to record highs and strengthened its position as a 대표 safe-haven asset. But the moves diverged after the United States and Israel attacked Iran on Feb. 28, local time. Bitcoin rebounded to around $70,000 after a sharp drop, but gold fell 11 percent amid rising oil prices and inflation worries, posting its biggest weekly decline since 1983. Expectations grew that bitcoin could become a safe haven that replaces gold, but experts are still taking a cautious view.

On March 25, blockchain media outlet Cointelegraph highlighted the diverging moves in bitcoin and gold during a wartime phase.

Jonatan Landin (조나탄 랜딘), a senior analyst at multi-currency trading platform PrimeXBT, said bitcoin moves more like a risk asset than a safe haven. He pointed to a tendency for bitcoin to be sold off alongside stocks when a geopolitical shock hits. He said bitcoin is currently trapped in a range and showing weakness within a larger downtrend, adding that this is far from the typical 모습 of a safe-haven asset.

In fact, bitcoin appears to respond more sensitively to global liquidity flows and shifts in financial policy than to war. Matthew Finnoc (매튜 피녹), co-founder of crypto project Altura, also said bitcoin is a high-beta liquidity asset, and that rising interest rates, a stronger dollar and slower inflows into exchange-traded funds (ETFs) weigh on its price. In recent years, bitcoin has reacted sensitively not only to geopolitical shocks but also to social media posts by influential figures such as U.S. President Donald Trump, he said, but such moves generally did not last long.

According to analysis by finance firm OrangeBTC, from May 2013 to July 2024 bitcoin’s price showed a correlation of 0.94 with global liquidity, far higher than gold’s 68.1 percent. The analysis by Sam Callahan (샘 캘러핸) also noted that bitcoin moved in the same direction as global M2 in 83 percent of 12-month periods.

The asset with the next-highest degree of directional alignment after bitcoin was the U.S. large-cap index S&P 500. That supports the view that bitcoin still shares characteristics similar to risk assets. Landin also said recent data show a similar pattern, citing bitcoin’s record high when global liquidity was expanding in the third quarter of 2025.

After the Iran war, inflation pressure increased due to rising oil prices and supply chain disruptions. The U.S. Federal Reserve raised its 2026 personal consumption expenditures (PCE) inflation forecast to 2.7 percent. With oil prices rising above $110 a barrel amid the fallout from the Iran conflict, the Fed signalled a more cautious path on rate cuts. Landin said bitcoin should be understood as a hedge against long-term erosion in currency value rather than a short-term inflation hedge.

Landin said a war-driven surge in oil prices stokes inflation expectations, lowering the chance of rate cuts while keeping real rates pinned at high levels. He said this chain reaction tightens financial conditions and weakens appetite for risk assets, limiting demand for bitcoin. Finnoc also said that in a phase of 'bad inflation'—when inflation forms as oil prices rise due to geopolitical factors and that pushes up yields and prompts a hawkish central bank stance—bitcoin can fall alongside other risk assets.

On-chain data, however, detect a different current. Exchange reserves are falling, large wallets are increasing bitcoin holdings, and accumulation is continuing. Even so, analysis follows that it is hard for such positioning to translate into immediate price strength unless the macro environment eases.

Bitcoin has in fact posted better returns than gold in some stretches after the war. But because it responds more sensitively to changes in financial conditions than to geopolitical instability itself, the 'digital gold' narrative still needs more verification. As a result, the market is watching how far bitcoin can move independently from the liquidity cycle and stock market trends.