Sau khủng hoảng lớn, so sánh hiệu suất tài sản sau 60 ngày: Thuộc tính phòng hộ của Bitcoin đang vượt xa vàng?

Brazilian cryptocurrency exchange Mercado Bitcoin recently released a study that systematically analyzed a 60-day window following economic or geopolitical shocks, finding that Bitcoin outperformed gold and the S&P 500 in each analysis period. The study covered multiple major shock scenarios, including the COVID-19 outbreak, the US tariff escalation in 2025, and the current US-Iran conflict.

In terms of specific data, after the Trump administration announced large-scale tariff measures in April 2025, Bitcoin rose 24% over the following 60 days, while gold increased by 8% and the S&P 500 only by 4%. During the initial outbreak of COVID-19 in March 2020, Bitcoin also gained 21%, significantly outperforming the other two assets. These cases outline a discernible pattern: after the panic selling phase caused by major shocks, Bitcoin demonstrates strong medium-term recovery momentum.

It is important to note that the core observation window of this study is “60 days after the shock occurs,” not the immediate performance on the day of the crisis. This means Bitcoin’s relative advantage is not reflected in an instant safe-haven effect, but rather in a medium-term recalibration of asset prices. For investors, this distinction is crucial—liquidity crunches in the early stages of shocks may suppress all asset prices, including traditional safe assets like gold.

Data evidence within the 60-day window: how three major events verify this pattern

Three independent geopolitical and economic shocks provide cross-validated data evidence for the above pattern.

The first is the COVID-19 shock in March 2020. Global financial markets experienced a “circuit breaker” type plunge, with the S&P 500 dropping about 30% within weeks, and gold also faced a brief liquidity crunch. However, during the subsequent 60-day recovery phase, Bitcoin rose 21%, significantly lagging behind the performance of gold and the S&P 500.

The second is the US tariff escalation in April 2025. At that time, markets were highly sensitive to uncertainties in the global trade system, with the S&P 500 and gold experiencing varying degrees of volatility. Bitcoin increased by 24% within the following 60-day window, while gold only rose 8%, and the S&P 500 by 4%, widening the gap further.

The third case is current. After the US and Israel launched joint military actions against Iran in February 2026, Middle East tensions sharply worsened. As of the study release, Bitcoin had already risen over 2.2% since the conflict erupted, climbing from about $65,800 to $67,300, becoming the only asset among the three to record positive returns; gold fell about 11%, and the S&P 500 declined about 4.4%, marking the largest monthly drop since 2022. Data from Gate indicates that as of April 13, 2026, Bitcoin’s price continued its recovery trend.

Why does gold perform differently during crises? The “failure” of traditional safe assets

Gold is often regarded as the ultimate safe-haven asset in market analysis, but during the recent market volatility triggered by the US-Iran conflict, gold prices experienced a significant decline. This phenomenon is not isolated—after the tariff shock in 2025, gold only gained 8% within the 60-day window, far below Bitcoin’s 24%.

Gold’s divergent performance must be viewed within a more complex macroeconomic environment. Since early 2026, the international gold market has experienced a rollercoaster: in January, gold prices surged to historic highs, approaching $5,600 per ounce; but from February to March, amid escalating Middle East tensions and a shift in Federal Reserve monetary policy expectations toward hawkishness, gold prices rapidly corrected, briefly falling below $4,318 per ounce, with a maximum decline of over 18%. The Fed’s March rate decision maintained the benchmark rate at 3.5% to 3.75%, and market expectations for rate cuts this year dropped from 2-3 times to only once, with the first cut delayed to Q4, directly increasing the opportunity cost of holding gold.

In other words, the safe-haven function of gold has experienced a phase failure under the combined pressure of high interest rates and volatile inflation expectations. This does not mean gold has lost its safe-haven attribute, but indicates that the relative performance of safe assets heavily depends on the type of shock and macroeconomic background.

Is Bitcoin “digital gold” or “risk asset”? Academic research reveals dual attributes

Does Bitcoin’s excellent performance after major shocks imply it possesses safe-haven qualities similar to gold? Academic research offers a more cautious conclusion.

A study published in Elsevier’s Financial Economics Letters used frequency domain decomposition to analyze Bitcoin’s hedging performance across different crisis types. It found that before the Trump 2.0 era, Bitcoin and gold exhibited high behavioral similarity during medium- to long-term crises (such as black swan events or systemic industry collapses), and Bitcoin’s correlation with the broader market was low. However, during the Trump 2.0 era, this similarity significantly declined, and Bitcoin shifted toward behavior akin to high-risk growth assets.

The core insight is that Bitcoin’s “safe-haven” properties are not fixed but evolve dynamically with market structure, regulatory environment, and investor composition. After institutional entry accelerated in 2025, Bitcoin’s market correlation increased, partially diluting its safe-haven attributes. Nonetheless, its medium-term recovery ability after shocks remains notable, showing a “strong post-shock” rather than “stability during shock” pattern. The study’s lead author also emphasized that judging asset properties solely based on post-crisis performance is risky—liquidity needs during initial shocks may cause all assets, including gold, to decline simultaneously. Investors should distinguish between “safe during shock” and “strong recovery after shock” in different timeframes.

Structural changes in Bitcoin market driven by institutional funds and regulation in 2026

The evolution of Bitcoin’s asset attributes is closely linked to profound market structural changes. In 2025, the global cryptocurrency market saw nearly $130 billion in capital inflows, a one-third increase over 2024, reaching a record high. Over half of this inflow was driven by corporate treasuries, amounting to about $68 billion, while institutional activity somewhat waned. JPMorgan forecasts that in 2026, the market’s driving force will shift toward institutional investors, with total inflows expected to further expand.

Meanwhile, global crypto regulation frameworks are shifting from “rule-making” to “enforcement.” PwC’s 2026 Global Cryptocurrency Regulations Report notes that stablecoin regulation has entered implementation, with many countries requiring reserve deposits and redemption mechanisms; the US Senate has advanced legislation on digital asset market structure, and the EU continues to issue detailed regulations under the MiCA framework.

Deep institutional involvement and gradual regulatory framework improvements are changing Bitcoin’s pricing logic. Market participants are shifting from retail and speculative capital to a diversified structure including sovereign wealth funds, pension funds, and traditional financial institutions. This change enhances market depth but may weaken Bitcoin’s independent pricing capacity during extreme shocks—since institutional behavior tends to reduce risk exposure simultaneously during systemic risks.

Macroeconomic attribution: stagflation risk, geopolitical conflicts, and Fed policy resonance

Bitcoin’s relative outperformance of gold and US stocks after major shocks is driven by deep macroeconomic factors. The current global macro environment is experiencing a threefold resonance:

First, stagflation risks are accelerating. Goldman Sachs has raised the probability of a US recession in the next 12 months to 30%, with Q3-Q4 GDP growth expected at only 1.25% to 1.75%. Meanwhile, Middle East conflicts have pushed crude oil prices above $100 per barrel, significantly increasing inflation rebound risks. The Fed faces a dilemma of “cutting and raising” interest rates.

Second, systemic escalation of geopolitical conflicts. The IMF and World Bank have classified the Middle East conflict as the “third major shock” after COVID-19 and Russia-Ukraine tensions. The Strait of Hormuz energy transportation continues to be disrupted, and Goldman Sachs estimates this round of conflict could reduce global GDP growth by about 0.4 percentage points, with extreme scenarios potentially reducing growth by 2 to 3 times the current estimate.

Third, global capital rebalancing. Hedge funds have been shorting global equities for five consecutive weeks, with the largest net sell-off since April 2025. In this context, capital is seeking new safe-haven or growth alternatives. Bitcoin, with its limited supply, decentralization, and relatively low correlation with traditional assets, has become a focus for some funds during portfolio rebalancing. Its total cap of 21 million coins, similar to gold’s supply rigidity, gives it a “digital scarcity” narrative as a store of value amid loose fiat monetary policies and expanding fiscal deficits.

Risk warnings before shocks: the real cost of Bitcoin’s high volatility

While emphasizing Bitcoin’s medium-term recovery ability, it is essential to acknowledge the real risks posed by its high volatility. For example, in 2026, after reaching a historic high of over $126,000 at the end of 2025, Bitcoin declined about 50% within the year. On-chain analysis from CryptoQuant shows that Bitcoin’s MVRV Z-score has not yet entered negative territory, indicating market sentiment remains in “cooling” rather than “despair.” The bottom is expected around late 2026, with a target range of $55,000 to $60,000.

This means that while investors chase the “post-shock recovery” logic, they must also endure significant drawdowns before the rebound. Within a 60-day window, Bitcoin could first fall 30%, then rebound 50%, resulting in a net positive gain. However, for investors unable to tolerate such volatility, this strategy’s effectiveness diminishes greatly. Moreover, liquidity-driven sell-offs during shocks may suppress all asset prices, including Bitcoin, in the short term. Therefore, “crisis buying” strategies require extremely precise timing, which is nearly impossible in practice.

Summary

Based on data from three major shocks, Bitcoin’s relative advantage over gold and the S&P 500 within a 60-day window after shocks is not coincidental. This pattern results from multiple factors: Bitcoin’s scarcity and decentralized supply give it a “digital gold” narrative during loose fiat cycles; its low correlation with traditional assets (though increasing with institutionalization) provides diversification benefits amid macro uncertainty; and its high volatility amplifies downside risks but also enhances resilience during recovery phases.

However, Bitcoin’s “outperformance after shocks” does not mean it is a “safe haven during shocks.” Investors must distinguish two different timeframes: the initial liquidity crunch may cause all assets to decline simultaneously, while the medium-term advantage depends on precise market timing. Bitcoin is neither a replacement for gold nor a pure risk asset—it is evolving into a new asset class with unique behavioral traits. In the macro environment of stagflation, geopolitical conflicts, and institutional flows in 2026, this characteristic may be further reinforced, but the associated volatility risk should not be overlooked.