The interesting thing about silver has never been "whether it will rise." The issue is that once it starts to go up, it often signals that the marginal stability of credit money is loosening. Gold's rise can still be explained as a safe-haven or reserve demand, but silver's abnormal movement is different—that's a signal of funds fleeing from "core safe assets" to "secondary hard assets."

Looking at history makes it clear. The big silver rally in 1980 was driven by high inflation combined with an oil crisis, while in 2011 it was due to rampant QE and repeated European debt crises. The pattern is never an exception: silver never leads the charge. It always waits for gold to confirm the trend before moving into a steeper, more uncontrollable rally.

The gold-silver ratio is essentially an index of confidence in monetary credit. Between 60 and 80, it indicates that order still exists. But once it drops below 40, the market no longer cares about "who is safer," instead rushing to buy any physical asset that cannot be infinitely replicated as an anchor. The silver market is small, with limited available inventory, and many paper derivatives. When genuine demand for physical holdings appears, prices can instantly detach from rational models.

Therefore, silver's rise is rarely about value discovery; it is fundamentally a distorted pricing resulting from liquidity squeeze. A gold-silver ratio of 30 is not a target, just a measure of sentiment. The only real variable is when the market will start to distrust the digital numbers on the books.

Gold is a chip among central banks; silver often acts as a market vote. Currently, gold has entered a phase dominated by monetary attributes, while silver is still in the early stage of recognition. This is not the end, but just the beginning of divergence. What we should truly be cautious of is not how high silver rises, but the moment it is priced as a currency.