A recent interesting phenomenon has made me rethink the definition of safe-haven assets. When geopolitical tensions escalate, traditional wisdom tells us to buy gold, but the market tells a different story.

Ray Dalio, founder of Bridgewater Associates, recently voiced his support for gold on a podcast, outright stating that Bitcoin doesn't deserve to be compared to gold at all. He listed the usual reasons: lack of central bank backing, poor privacy, and the threat of quantum computing. Dalio insists that gold remains the true safe haven in times of chaos and is the second-largest reserve asset held by central banks worldwide.

Sounds convincing, right?

But here’s the interesting part. On the very day Dalio made these remarks, reality gave him a loud slap. Gold prices plummeted by $168 to $5,128 per ounce, a 3% drop in a single day. And Bitcoin? Only a slight correction of 0.7%, holding steady at $68,700.

At that time, the U.S.-Iran conflict had already entered its fifth day, and the market was highly anxious. This should have been a golden moment for gold to shine, but the opposite happened. During the most critical moments for safe-haven assets, gold’s decline was even more severe than that of cryptocurrencies.

This isn’t the first time we’ve seen a disconnect between the two. From July to early October last year, Bitcoin and gold moved quite synchronously until a $20 billion liquidation wave in the crypto market caused them to diverge. From the October high, Bitcoin retraced over 45%, while gold surged 30%, breaking through the $5,100 mark.

The market performance during this recent geopolitical conflict is even more intriguing. Initially, gold prices soared with the onset of military strikes, but as the fighting spread and concerns about oil supply disruptions grew, gold lost momentum and retraced all gains. Bitcoin, although also experiencing panic selling on Saturday, rebounded strongly on Sunday after news of Iran’s Supreme Leader’s death.

These series of fluctuations highlight a reality: no asset can perfectly serve as a “safe harbor.” Both face intense volatility, though Bitcoin’s swings tend to be relatively smaller.

Honestly, Dalio’s skepticism of cryptocurrencies is nothing new. He often emphasizes Bitcoin’s transparency issues, claiming every transaction can be monitored or even manipulated, and doubts how central banks could amass large holdings of an asset operating on a public ledger. He also repeatedly warns that quantum computing poses a long-term threat to Bitcoin.

Interestingly, Dalio isn’t entirely bearish on Bitcoin. His personal portfolio still includes about 1% in Bitcoin. Last July, he even suggested that investors allocate 15% of their funds to Bitcoin or gold amid worsening U.S. debt issues, calling it the “best risk-reward ratio” choice.

Last month, Dalio also warned that the “world order” led by the U.S. has begun to fracture, and investors should rethink their wealth preservation strategies. The question is, in today’s turbulent global environment, is gold still the “only solution”? This is a topic fiercely debated on Wall Street and in global markets. And the unexpected price movements this week clearly make Dalio’s “gold supremacy” argument harder and harder to convince the public. Sometimes, the market’s answer is more straightforward than any theory.