Bitcoin Under Pressure in Macro Turning Point: A Multidimensional Interpretation of Gold's Historical Breakthrough and Quantum Computing Risks

When the global capital allocation landscape undergoes profound changes, Bitcoin’s performance issue is no longer an isolated phenomenon. Since the beginning of this year, Bitcoin has hovered around $82,000, facing obvious macroeconomic suppression, while at the same time, traditional safe-haven assets like gold and silver are experiencing historic rallies. This stark contrast has not only sparked market doubts about Bitcoin as a store of value but also brought the old topic of quantum computing threats back to the surface. However, deeper analysis shows that Bitcoin’s difficulties stem from more pragmatic factors—macro liquidity shifts, supply-side pressures, and the reallocation of global capital—rather than emerging technological risks.

Macro Environment Changes: Capital is Moving from Crypto Assets to Traditional Safe Havens

Since the end of 2024, the flow of global capital has undergone dramatic shifts. Looking at the performance after last November’s elections, there has been a significant divergence between traditional assets and crypto assets:

Gold up 83%, Silver surged 205%, while Bitcoin fell 2.6%. Meanwhile, stock markets (Nasdaq up 24%, S&P 500 up 17.6%) also rose but far less than precious metals.

Behind this imbalance is a surge in demand from global investors for traditional safe-haven assets. Gold has broken through its all-time high of $4,930, and silver is approaching $96. These gains are driven not merely by speculation but by structural capital shifts—escalating geopolitical tensions, rising sovereign debt risks, and concentrated central bank holdings, collectively forming the foundation of this super rally in precious metals.

In this macro context, Bitcoin has been positioned by the market as a high-risk asset rather than a safe haven. When market risk appetite declines, high-risk assets naturally lead the decline.

The Macro Signals Behind Gold’s Historic Record: Central Bank Actions Reveal Capital Flows

The historic surge in gold and silver is no coincidence. Charles Edwards, founder of Capriole Investments, has made a bold prediction—that gold could reach $12,000 to $23,000 per ounce within the next 3 to 8 years. This forecast is based on several key macro observations:

• Record-breaking accumulation of gold reserves by central banks
• Continuous expansion of money supply at an annual growth rate exceeding 10%
• China nearly tenfold increase in gold reserves over two years
• Persistent decline in confidence in sovereign bond markets

“If this cycle reflects the characteristics of those historic asset expansions in the 20th century, then gold’s upside potential is far from exhausted,” Edwards summarized.

Although the monthly RSI indicator for gold has reached extreme overbought levels not seen since the 1970s, analysts point out that the main driver of this rally is structural demand—large allocations by central banks, sovereign wealth funds, and hedge funds—not scattered speculative chasing. This precisely reflects a profound adjustment in the global macro landscape.

Why Is Bitcoin Falling Behind? Market Structure or Technological Risks?

As Bitcoin remains weak around $82,000, a debate about the source of risk has reignited. Nick Carter, partner at Castle Island Ventures, recently suggested that Bitcoin’s “mysteriousness” worsening is related to the market’s increasing awareness of quantum computing threats.

“Bitcoin’s poor performance is related to the market recognizing quantum computing risks,” Carter said, “the market is signaling—yet developers are ignoring it.”

This argument was immediately challenged by on-chain data analysts and long-term investors.

On-Chain Data Reveals the Truth: Supply Release Is the Real Culprit Suppressing Bitcoin

Checkonchain analysts point directly to the core issue—the market structure rather than illusory technological threats is the real suppressor. They note that the reason gold is in demand is because sovereign funds and central banks are using it to replace traditional government bonds, reflecting a strategic macro-level shift.

Bitcoin’s situation is entirely different. On-chain data shows that long-term holders (institutions and individuals who have accumulated Bitcoin over many years) significantly increased their selling in 2025. When Bitcoin approached the psychological threshold of $100,000, the large holders’ concentrated release of supply was enough to absorb the new buying from ETFs and institutional inflows, ultimately dampening the rebound momentum.

Bitcoin investor Vijay Boyapati added, “The real reason is straightforward—when we hit the six-figure psychological level, large holders start unlocking supply on a massive scale, which fully explains the current downturn.”

How Urgent Is the Quantum Computing Threat? Developers Provide a Long-Term Perspective

Although discussions about quantum computing have been reignited, the Bitcoin development community generally believes this threat is seriously overestimated, especially in the short term. Quantum computers capable of executing Shor’s algorithm and theoretically cracking elliptic curve cryptography are still far off, far from practical deployment.

Adam Back, co-founder of Blockstream, has repeatedly emphasized that even in the worst-case scenario, the emergence of quantum computing would not immediately threaten the Bitcoin network. More importantly, Bitcoin Improvement Proposal BIP-360 has planned an upgrade path to quantum-resistant address formats, allowing the network to implement gradual updates years before any real threat materializes.

Developers stress that such protocol upgrades require many years or even decades to complete, and will not unfold according to market trading cycles—making quantum computing threats almost impossible to explain short-term price declines.

Traditional Finance Perspective: Long-Term Risks Exist but No Need for Immediate Worry

It is worth noting that traditional financial institutions are also beginning to pay attention to this topic. Jefferies strategist Christopher Wood recently removed Bitcoin from his model portfolio, citing long-term quantum computing risks among the reasons.

However, industry analysis generally believes that the real issue is not whether Bitcoin can adapt to such challenges, but how long the upgrade process would take—answering in terms of decades, not quarters. This time mismatch makes it somewhat strained to interpret current market performance as driven by quantum computing threats.

Macro Liquidity Is the Key: Future Trends Depend on Global Capital Patterns

When all these factors are summarized, Bitcoin’s outlook ultimately depends on more macro factors—global interest rates, trade tensions, geopolitical situations, and central bank policies.

The current macro environment includes:

• Persistently rising global bond yields
• Escalating trade frictions and geopolitical uncertainties
• A clear trend of central banks shifting towards precious metals
• Market risk appetite at a capital preservation stage rather than risk-taking

In this atmosphere, Bitcoin needs to re-affirm the key resistance levels of $91,000 to $93,500 from the current $82,000 to regain upward momentum. If this level is broken, the next support zone will be between $85,000 and $88,000.

Ultimately, whether technical breakthroughs occur depends on clear macroeconomic signals of improvement. Before monetary policies or geopolitical situations improve significantly, market analysts generally believe Bitcoin will remain reactive rather than proactive—whereas gold, benefiting from the historic shift in global capital reallocation, seems to have a more solid structural foundation for its rise.

This round of financial asset revaluation essentially reflects a major shift in global wealth preservation mentality, and the depth and breadth of this shift will continue to influence the performance of all high-risk assets, including Bitcoin, over a considerable cycle.