This article is organized from the WeChat mini-program: Encrypted Cloud Tour
In the early morning of February 28, the United States and Israel launched a joint military strike against Iran.
The textbook says: War is coming, buy gold.
But this time, the textbook seems to be wrong.
Gold briefly surged from $5,296 to $5,423, then fell all the way to around $5,020, closing in the red for two consecutive weeks. Bitcoin rebounded from the panic low of $63,000 to $75,000, rising over 20%, outperforming gold, the S&P, and the Nasdaq.
In the same war, during the same period, gold fell while Bitcoin rose.
What exactly happened?
Gold: choked by interest rates
On the day the war broke out, gold's performance was relatively normal. On the 28th, gold prices rose by 2%, surpassing $5,300. Panic buying surged in, and everything looked exactly like the historical script.
Then the script collapsed.
On March 3, gold prices plummeted over 6%, falling to $5,085. For the next two weeks, it oscillated between $5,050 and $5,200, with unclear direction. As of the time of writing, spot gold is around $5,020, having dropped nearly 10% from the historical high of $5,416 at the end of January.
The war is still ongoing, and the shells are still flying, yet gold is falling more and more.
The chain of events is as follows: in this war, the Strait of Hormuz has been blocked. About one-fifth of the world's seaborne oil passes through this waterway. Iran has blocked the strait, insurance companies have withdrawn coverage for ships, tankers have stopped operating, and oil prices have surged past $100. The International Energy Agency urgently released 400 million barrels of strategic oil reserves, double that of the 2022 Russia-Ukraine war. Commodity strategist Daniel Ghali of TD Securities said: "Such a large gap cannot be closed."
Soaring oil prices have ignited inflation expectations. The market has begun to reprice the Federal Reserve's interest rate cut path. Before the war, the market expected two rate cuts in 2026. However, according to Bloomberg, traders now expect the probability of a rate cut at this week's Federal Reserve meeting to be nearly zero.
High interest rates are the nemesis of gold. Gold does not earn interest; the higher the interest rate, the greater the opportunity cost of holding gold. Funds naturally flow to interest-earning assets like U.S. Treasuries. Commerzbank commodity analyst Barbara Lambrecht pointed out: "Gold prices have continuously failed to benefit from this geopolitical crisis. Oil and natural gas prices surged again this week, increasing inflation risks that could force central banks to take action."
Traditional logic is that war triggers panic, and panic drives up gold. But this time the chain has changed—war has led to soaring oil prices, which in turn triggered inflation, inflation locking in interest rates, and interest rates suppressing gold. Gold is not afraid of war itself, but of the inflationary consequences that war brings.
There is another signal worth noting. The governor of the Polish central bank recently publicly stated that they are considering selling part of their gold reserves to lock in profits. Over the past three years, global central bank purchases of gold have been the biggest driver of rising gold prices. If even central banks start to loosen, the long-term support for gold prices may crack. Philip Newman, director of precious metals consulting company Metals Focus, said: "Some investors are disappointed with gold's subdued reaction after the war broke out and have started to reduce their positions. This reduction in positions, in turn, reinforces the price weakness."
Bitcoin: rising against the tide
On February 28, news of a joint U.S.-Israel strike against Iran broke. Bitcoin was the only liquid asset still trading that day, plummeting 8.5% within minutes, from $66,000 to $63,000.
Gold has risen, the dollar has risen, and Bitcoin has fallen. Everyone's first reaction is the same: Bitcoin is a risk asset, not a safe-haven asset.
Looking back two weeks later, things are much more complicated than this judgment.
On March 5, Bitcoin rebounded to $73,156. On March 13, it briefly surpassed $74,000. As of the time of writing, Bitcoin is at $73,170, up about 20% from its pre-war low. During the same period, gold has fallen by about 3.5%, and the S&P 500 has fallen by about 1%.
Bitcoin has outperformed all traditional safe-haven assets. This is a fact. But why?
The most popular explanation in the market is that war leads to fiscal expansion and economic recession, forcing the Federal Reserve to eventually cut rates and print money, which benefits Bitcoin. This narrative sounds appealing, but it has a clear logical flaw—if inflation caused by war prevents the Federal Reserve from cutting rates, then "liquidity injection" will not happen. Moreover, even if the Federal Reserve does inject liquidity, gold would benefit as well. The simple expectation of "liquidity injection" does not explain the divergence between gold and Bitcoin.
A more honest answer is that several factors combined together.
First, a technical rebound from overselling. Bitcoin fell from its historical high of $126,000 in October last year to $63,000, a drop of about 50%. In early February, a sudden wave of liquidations wiped out $2.5 billion in leveraged positions over a weekend. CoinDesk's analysis concluded that this liquidation "cleared out the weakest holders and reset market positions," leaving a leaner market. So when the war came, there wasn't much leftover supply of Bitcoin to be sold off in retaliation.
Second, the structural advantage of 24/7 trading. February 28 was a Saturday, when the U.S. and Israel struck Iran, while global stock markets, bond markets, and commodity markets were closed. Bitcoin was the only liquidity window open. It was first hit because panic funds needed to be liquidated immediately; but it was also the only place capable of absorbing capital inflows before the market opened on Monday.
Third, funds flowing back into ETFs. The U.S. spot Bitcoin ETF saw a net inflow of over $1.34 billion in March, marking three consecutive weeks of net inflows, the longest continuous inflow period since July last year. BlackRock's IBIT attracted nearly $1 billion in new funds in March alone. Meanwhile, the world's largest gold ETF (SPDR Gold ETF) saw outflows of over $4.8 billion during the same period. Funds are relocating, but this looks more like institutions reconfiguring their positions; it's too early to conclude whether this constitutes a long-term trend.
Fourth, portability in war. This factor is rarely mentioned in mainstream analysis, but it is extremely important in the specific context of the Middle Eastern war. Dubai is the global hub for gold trading, connecting European, African, and Asian markets. After the war broke out, Dubai's gold logistics network was severely impacted, with disrupted shipping routes and invalidated insurance, leaving physical gold trapped in warehouses unable to be moved out. You cannot carry a ton of gold bars through a war zone. Bitcoin, on the other hand, is completely different—one can carry nothing, remember 12 mnemonic words, cross the border, and it equals taking away all assets. After the war broke out, the outflow of funds from Iran's largest crypto exchange, Nobitex, surged by 700%. This is not about investors being optimistic about Bitcoin; it is about people voting with their feet during the war, choosing the easiest thing to take away.
Tiger Research pointed out in a report: "In finance, a 'safe haven' refers to an asset that can maintain its price during a crisis. This is a completely different concept from 'an asset that can be used during a crisis.'" Bitcoin clearly belongs to the latter in this war.
No single factor can explain everything. But together, they can explain why Bitcoin has performed better than most people expected in this war.
Two surprises
Putting these two lines together, this war has created two surprises.
The first surprise is gold. It fell when it was supposed to rise. The war directly hit energy supplies, triggering not just panic but inflation, and inflation expectations suppressed gold prices through interest rate chains. Gold's safe-haven function is not unconditional—when the transmission path of war is a crisis triggering inflation and interest rates cannot decline, gold gets stuck in the middle, unable to move. Another often-overlooked physical weakness: in war, physical gold is hard to move.
The second surprise is Bitcoin. It rose when it was expected to fall. But this does not mean Bitcoin has "matured" into a safe-haven asset. Its performance is more like a combination of multiple technical factors and structural advantages. Aurelie Barthere, chief research analyst at Nansen, noted that Bitcoin's sensitivity to negative news about the war has significantly decreased, while the European Stoxx index fell harder than Bitcoin during the same period. CoinDesk's analysis puts it more accurately: "Bitcoin is not a safe haven, nor is it purely a risk asset. It has become a 24/7 liquidity pool that absorbs shocks faster than anything else when other markets are closed."
With each escalation of the war, Bitcoin still falls. It just falls less each time and rebounds faster.
Old map, new continent
Over the past five years, the market has told a simple yet powerful story: gold is the anchor in troubled times, Bitcoin is digital gold.
The Middle Eastern war in March 2026 has unraveled this story.
Gold's thousands of years of safe-haven credibility have not collapsed, but it has exposed a weakness that is rarely articulated in textbooks: when the transmission path of war is inflation rather than pure panic, interest rates can be more powerful than geopolitics. Bitcoin has outperformed gold, but that does not mean it has taken up the banner of "safe-haven asset." Its rise is the result of a rebound from overselling, structural advantages, institutional allocations, and the portability of war, not a formal coronation of its identity by the market.
The subsequent trend depends on two variables: how long this war lasts and how the Federal Reserve ultimately chooses. Gold and Bitcoin are betting on different outcomes of the same war, but the outcome is still uncertain.
"Safe haven" may need to be redefined after this war. It is no longer a label for an asset class, but a question of time dimension: are you hedging today's risks or betting on tomorrow's world?
Gold and Bitcoin have given two completely different answers.