"GateLive Roundtable Discussion" 2026 - Issue 5: The "Trust Crisis" of Safe-Haven Assets: How Do We Rebuild Investment Logic When Gold and Bitcoin Crash Simultaneously?

“Gate Live Roundtable Discussion” is a Chinese-language crypto roundtable interview program created by Gate Live. It airs promptly every Tuesday at 20:00, focusing on the most discussed industry topics of the moment. We regularly invite core practitioners and frontline observers from fields such as blockchain, Web3, DeFi, Ethereum ecosystem, stablecoins, as well as compliance and policy, to join the live broadcast for in-depth exchanges.

The roundtable emphasizes a relaxed, open, and authentic dialogue atmosphere, exploring market trends, industry disagreements, and key variables from multiple perspectives, helping viewers form clearer and more rational judgments amid complex market narratives.

This episode’s theme: “Trust Crisis of Safe-Haven Assets”: When Gold and Bitcoin Crash Simultaneously, How Do We Rebuild Investment Logic?

Guests for this episode: Well-known KOL in the Chinese crypto community — Domingo_gou, Big E🔥Eric, Mark Ruo Mcrowe

This program’s content is for informational exchange and opinion discussion only and does not constitute any investment advice.

(This content is compiled from the live replay, with text assisted and appropriately edited by AI. For the full content, please copy the link: https://www.gate.com/zh/live/video/6861c4c2b301ccd8ceee91e17acbb956)

Host Jesse:

Hello everyone, good evening. Welcome to GateLive Roundtable. I am your host Jesse.

Every Tuesday at 8 PM, we gather here to focus on hot topics in the crypto market.

Just past week, the market experienced a breathtaking scene: gold plunged 12% in a single day, silver tumbled 35%, setting a record; meanwhile, Bitcoin, known as “digital gold,” also broke below $79,000. Overnight, trillions of dollars in market cap evaporated. Whether it’s traditional “safe havens” or emerging assets, they all seem to be “failing” simultaneously.

Is this sudden asset “trust crisis” just a violent correction in a bull market, or has a fundamental change occurred in the underlying logic? When safe-haven assets themselves are in trouble, where should investors’ funds go?

Tonight, we are very honored to invite three heavyweight guests to discuss this critical issue: Domingo_gou, Big E🔥Eric, and Mark Ruo Mcrowe. Welcome, everyone!

Before diving into the topic, as usual, let’s have each guest briefly introduce themselves. Following the order on the poster, let’s invite Domingo_gou first.

Domingo_gou:

Okay, thank you, host. Good evening everyone, I’m Domingo. It’s a great honor to receive Gate’s invitation. Tonight, I look forward to learning and exchanging with everyone. Thanks to all for taking your valuable time to participate.

Eric:

Hello everyone, I’m very honored to be invited to this live broadcast to discuss Bitcoin and gold’s recent correction. I mainly do autonomous analysis and investment, and I’m very happy to be here with all the teachers to learn and discuss. Thank you.

Mark Ruo Mcrowe:

I’m Mark Ruo Mcrowe, with about five years of deep engagement in trading, with ongoing research into both derivatives and spot markets, and regularly conducting investment research analysis. Very happy to join tonight’s discussion, thank you all.

Host Jesse:

Thanks again to all the teachers for being here. Now, let’s officially start today’s discussion.

First, as mentioned earlier, gold and Bitcoin have recently plunged together. I’d like to ask everyone: Is this decline a short-term technical correction, or has a fundamental market trend changed? Please share your analysis.

Domingo_gou:

Alright, I mainly focus on investment research, so I’ll share my personal perspective.

Many might see a very frightening scene these days: gold and Bitcoin falling simultaneously. Many wonder: why are these safe-haven assets moving in sync?

A fundamental judgment is: we need to determine whether these assets are truly being “called out,” or if their safe-haven properties have completely failed. I believe this is a systemic liquidity expectation turning point, pre-judged by market prices.

To be more specific, the core isn’t that people are selling gold or Bitcoin, but that the market is re-evaluating where the future asset costs and credit expansion limits are. We can understand this through historical events:

• 1980 Gold and interest rate cycle turning point: Historically, large fluctuations in gold are not because gold loses value itself, but because expectations for interest rates and bond market risk appetite undergo phase shifts. When the dollar interest rate shifts from high to low expectations, gold, as a long-term safe-haven but non-yielding asset, faces opportunity cost disadvantages and is systematically sold off. This is very similar to our current situation — the market isn’t bearish on gold, but in a future environment with higher interest rate expectations, its opportunity cost becomes higher.
• 2013 Fed tapering: When the market anticipated the Fed would reduce bond purchases, risk assets sharply corrected. It wasn’t because the assets’ logic was broken, but because the market pre-priced the limited future liquidity. We see that the decline was actually validated at the systemic expectation level.

The keyword behind this is “liquidity turning point”.

Therefore, the sharp drop in gold isn’t a failure of safe-haven properties, nor is Bitcoin’s plunge a collapse of faith. The reason they both fell together is: funds are prioritizing conversion into cash because, in a system where future expectations are no longer loose, cash is the optimal liquidity buffer.

I see this more as a deep technical adjustment and a reaction to a systemic expectation shift.

If short-term liquidity tightens, prices can recover once expectations stabilize. If in the future we truly enter a long-term high-interest, tighter credit cycle, then that could be a trend reversal.

Of course, what we see today is a shift in expectations, not necessarily a permanent change. It’s also the market re-positioning risks at the systemic boundary.

To summarize: I think this crash is a “violent repricing under the systemic liquidity turning point”, not a complete asset death sentence. That’s my view. Thank you, host.

Eric:

Alright, I personally think this is a short-term correction.

Gold from a high of 5600 down to around 4000, with a daily drop of about 10%; Bitcoin also broke support, with a low of 74,000.

Currently, gold’s monthly chart remains in a strong upward channel, near the mid-lower band, without a confirmed death cross. I believe this is a healthy retracement, also driven by large institutional and investor arbitrage.

Regarding Bitcoin, we see it has been falling for four or five months, currently oscillating between 75,000 and 79,000. From a big trend perspective, no death cross has appeared yet, but if it drops below 74,000, that would be quite dangerous for Bitcoin.

Emotionally, many are pessimistic. Liquidity in the crypto space is tight, except for Bitcoin and Ethereum, other assets have very poor liquidity, and no new hot spots or trends are emerging.

So I personally think both Bitcoin and gold’s significant declines are just corrections.

It’s still uncertain whether, as social media suggests, precious metals’ liquidity will flow back into the crypto space.

A sharp correction in precious metals or US stocks might lead some users to return to Bitcoin. For investors’ cost-effectiveness, I think Bitcoin is more attractive now, so I believe some investors will shift from precious metals or US stocks to Bitcoin, sparking a small rebound. For now, it’s just a technical correction.

Mark Ruo Mcrowe:

Alright, I still hold my usual view: I believe this is a liquidity crisis. It’s somewhat like a violent deleveraging, and the underlying logic of assets hasn’t changed — for example, the safe-haven attribute of precious metals remains.

This wave was caused by prior rapid gains, leading to a “longs killing longs” scenario — all longs wanted to close positions, but the shorts had already been wiped out the day before, leaving no shorts in the market. This caused a severe “longs killing longs” stampede, triggering a sharp decline in gold and silver.

A fundamental financial principle: when all assets (risk or safe-haven) decline together, what rises are cash and volatility. This tsunami of longs killing longs affected the crypto market (crypto plunged), global stocks (US, China, Asia-Pacific like Korea, Japan) also declined simultaneously.

Such synchronized crashes usually signal a liquidity crisis. After a longs liquidation or margin call, unliquidated institutions need to add a lot of margin (for example, before this wave, many large positions in precious metals required increasing margins). Those unable to meet margin calls have already liquidated positions before the crash. To fill margin gaps and replenish liquidity, they sell assets with good liquidity, causing a broad market decline.

But the underlying logic of assets remains unchanged — for example, safe-haven needs, crypto’s anti-inflation and anti-censorship properties still exist. So I see this as a temporary deleveraging, a short-term correction.

Currently, Bitcoin hasn’t entered a true bear market; it’s more like the late stage of a bull market clearing leverage. We see that after this drop, MicroStrategy and some exchanges have bought back Bitcoin. Also, many US-listed companies haven’t sold off massively yet, so I think we’re still in the late stage of a bull market.

Host Jesse:

Next, let’s focus on Bitcoin. In recent years, Bitcoin has often been called “digital gold,” but during this wave of volatility, gold soared while Bitcoin lagged, then both fell together. Does this mean Bitcoin’s “safe-haven” attribute is weakening?

Domingo_gou:

Good, host. Regarding this — gold fell, and Bitcoin also fell. What is the essence behind Bitcoin’s “identity crisis”?

Many call Bitcoin “digital gold,” but that’s an oversimplification. Bitcoin isn’t just a label issue; it’s about usage, price discovery mechanisms, and participant roles.

Logically:

• Gold has long-standing structural buy-in, supported by central bank reserves and systemic backing. Simply put, gold is historical credit, a value store proven by institutions over centuries.
• Bitcoin, only 15 years old, is more like a product of future credit market consensus. When the market is in an easing phase, people may prefer to pre-exchange future credit, pushing Bitcoin higher; when a liquidity turning point occurs, focus shifts to whether liquidity is sufficient, not distant value.

In this context, Bitcoin is no longer seen as a systemic safe-haven but as a liquidity risk asset, especially during high volatility.

Second, Bitcoin’s dual identity causes this reaction. It’s not a single-attribute asset; it exhibits different properties at different stages:

• During expansion, it acts like a high-yield growth asset;
• During liquidity tightening, it behaves more like a risk asset;
• When the long-term structural logic is solid, it aligns more with gold-like non-traditional value storage.

That’s why Bitcoin doesn’t necessarily rise with gold when gold rises, and sometimes falls when gold falls — because in liquidity crunch phases, the market first prices in risk premiums, regardless of its previous safe-haven label.

It’s not that Bitcoin’s identity has collapsed, but that the market’s pricing mechanism for it is being reset by short-term liquidity. In other words, Bitcoin’s safe-haven attribute isn’t intrinsic; it’s a consensus attribute that varies with market systemic liquidity conditions.

Eric:

I personally think Bitcoin’s safe-haven attribute is indeed a false proposition. Currently, funds tend to flow into active liquidity assets. Gold, regarded as a safe-haven, benefits from current global situations (like Iran conflicts, political changes, economic uncertainties), attracting safe-haven capital, leading to a big rise.

But Bitcoin is performing very weakly now. From the overall sentiment, Bitcoin can’t yet serve as a safe haven. But in the future, when gold and precious metals reach certain levels, with no new funds entering and volatility decreasing, Bitcoin might become a second safe-haven choice, with large funds shifting from metals to Bitcoin.

So, although Bitcoin’s “digital gold” attribute is weakening now, I believe it will gradually strengthen in the future. Thanks.

Mark Ruo Mcrowe:

Thanks, host. I agree with both teachers’ views. For example, Domingo mentioned “future credit,” and Eric said Bitcoin’s safe-haven is a false proposition — I think that’s fine.

In my view, Bitcoin’s overall definition lies in its anti-inflation and anti-censorship properties. Calling it a safe haven is still a bit premature. Of course, it can store value, and is a form of future credit; this consensus might have greater utility in the future. When that time comes, it could truly become a powerful safe-haven product.

Currently, for example, considering the liquidity crisis we discussed: only when fiat currencies (like USD) lose confidence or hyperinflation occurs, will Bitcoin and gold have safe-haven attributes. This wave’s overall decline, besides the leverage-driven liquidation I mentioned earlier, also hinges on Trump nominating a new Fed chair — initially thought it might be Waller (supporting easing), but ultimately nominated Wosh (favoring rate hikes, dollar dominance). This caused gold and Bitcoin expectations to fall, compounded by high leverage, leading to this crisis.

Today, Bitcoin’s role is more about anti-inflation — like in regions with hyperinflation, or where stablecoins and dollar-pegged assets are used more. For example, in Africa and South America, people prefer stablecoins, USD, or Bitcoin because local currencies are unreliable. So it has value.

In institutional views, Bitcoin is more like a tech stock. Another key point: compared to other assets, Bitcoin is a 24/7 “ATM”. Why did this crash hit so hard and resist well? An important reason is that the crash happened over the weekend — traditional markets are closed, people need cash and liquidity, panic selling ensues. Since weekends have low liquidity and no circuit breakers, with high leverage, liquidation is rapid. Institutions, resting in traditional markets, need liquidity and can only sell Bitcoin. So, its safe-haven attribute seems practically dead.

But there’s good news: this wave, with Bitcoin and precious metals crashing together, including global stocks, actually confirms a view — Bitcoin has deeply integrated into the global financial system. People consider selling it to replenish liquidity, indirectly proving it’s a high-quality asset.

In terms of liquidity, it’s a liquidity crisis supplement; its safe-haven attribute is somewhat lacking but not entirely absent. Whether in a time dimension or as a safe-haven product, it’s still somewhat inferior, but it does have some safe-haven qualities. Calling it “digital gold” now might be premature. That’s my view.

Host Jesse:

Finally, the most pressing question for investors: in the context of synchronized shocks to traditional and non-traditional safe-haven assets, how should we diversify our portfolios to cope with potentially higher future market risks?

Domingo_gou:

Good question, host. When market rules keep changing, how can we protect our wealth?

Actually, I want to say, the market won’t give you a safe-haven asset that never falls. True safe-haven is about not being shaken out during turbulence.

Right now, the market is signaling an important point: liquidity is no longer an infinite expansion like early on, but is contracting and being re-calibrated by systemic mechanisms. Under this situation, I think there are a few core points to preserve wealth:

1. Cash is a strategic asset: Cash isn’t useless; it’s a key part of strategic assets. In unstable global conditions and affected markets, it’s a way to reserve asset ratios. When liquidity expectations tighten, having cash buffers reduces forced selling risk. In the worst case, cash gives us options.
2. Diversify risk drivers, not just assets: Many say they hold Bitcoin, gold, stocks, US stocks, etc., but if they’re all compressed by the same mechanism (like liquidity expectations), they tend to move together. True diversification involves risk factors — like inflation expectations, interest rate risks, liquidity expectations, credit risks — these are the factors that resist cycles.
3. Position management and balancing: As markets keep changing, responding with better rules and strategies may be better than following the crowd. Markets won’t automatically profit for us, but with prepared rules, we might survive better when others panic.

In the end, I believe real safe-haven is about surviving long-term, maintaining quality assets through extreme turbulence, and having a chance at the future. Thanks.

Eric:

I also strongly agree with what Domingo said. From my personal perspective, I think cash is king, plus some diversified related assets.

Regarding the current environment, I think the sequence of correlation is: stocks first rise, then gold, then Bitcoin.

My current suggested allocation framework is:

• 30-40% cash
• 20-30% physical gold or tokenized gold
• 15-20% Bitcoin or other high-risk tokens
• 15% commodities
• 5-10% stocks

This is my investment outlook toward 2026, shared for reference.

A couple of personal tips: I would wait for two major signals before heavily allocating to Bitcoin:

1. When Bitcoin’s weekly chart recovers to 90,000, I will consider increasing my position, but not now.
2. For gold, I’ll wait another week or two to see if 4,500 breaks through, then consider increasing.

I will set strict stop-losses because I’m not very optimistic about the global economy in 2026. Managing risk is key to avoiding black swan events.

Given so many uncertainties in 2026, I think preserving assets is more important than making profits. That’s my personal allocation and view.

Mark Ruo Mcrowe:

Thanks, host. I agree with both teachers’ points. For example, Domingo mentioned “future credit,” and Eric said Bitcoin’s safe-haven is a false proposition — I think that’s fine.

In my view, Bitcoin’s overall definition is about its anti-inflation and anti-censorship properties. Calling it a safe haven is still a bit early. Of course, it can store value, and is a future credit form; this consensus might have greater utility later. When that time comes, it could become a very powerful safe-haven.

Now, for example, considering the liquidity crisis: only when fiat (like USD) confidence is damaged or hyperinflation occurs, will Bitcoin and gold have safe-haven attributes. This wave’s decline, besides the leverage liquidation I mentioned, also hinges on Trump nominating a new Fed chair — initially thought it might be Waller (supporting easing), but ultimately nominated Wosh (favoring rate hikes, dollar dominance). This caused gold and Bitcoin expectations to fall, compounded by high leverage, leading to the crisis.

Today, Bitcoin’s role is more about anti-inflation — like in regions with hyperinflation or unstable currencies, people prefer stablecoins, USD, or Bitcoin. So it has value.

In institutions’ eyes, Bitcoin is more like a tech stock. Another key point: compared to other assets, Bitcoin is a 24/7 “ATM”. Why did this crash hit so hard and resist well? One big reason is that the crash happened over the weekend — traditional markets are closed, people need liquidity, panic selling occurs. Since weekends have low liquidity and no circuit breakers, with high leverage, liquidation is rapid. Institutions, resting in traditional markets, need liquidity and can only sell Bitcoin. So its safe-haven attribute seems practically dead.

But there’s good news: this wave, with Bitcoin and precious metals crashing together, including global stocks, actually confirms a view — Bitcoin has deeply integrated into the global financial system. People consider selling it to get liquidity, indirectly proving it’s a high-quality asset.

In liquidity terms, it’s a liquidity crisis supplement; its safe-haven attribute is somewhat lacking but not entirely absent. Whether in a time dimension or as a safe-haven, it’s still somewhat inferior, but it does have some safe-haven qualities. Calling it “digital gold” now might be premature. That’s my view.

Host Jesse:

Finally, the most concerned question for investors: in the face of synchronized shocks to traditional and non-traditional safe-haven assets, how should we diversify to face potentially higher future risks?

Domingo_gou:

Good question, host. When market rules keep changing, how can we protect our wealth?

Actually, I want to say, the market won’t give you a safe-haven asset that never falls. True safe-haven is about not being shaken out during turbulence.

Right now, the market signals an important point: liquidity is no longer an endless expansion but is contracting and being re-calibrated by systemic mechanisms. Under this, I think there are a few core points:

1. Cash is strategic: Cash isn’t useless; it’s a key strategic asset. In unstable global conditions, it’s a reserve ratio tool. When liquidity expectations tighten, having cash buffers reduces forced liquidation risk. In worst cases, cash gives us options.
2. Diversify risk drivers, not just assets: Many hold Bitcoin, gold, stocks, etc., but if they’re all driven by the same systemic mechanism (like liquidity expectations), they tend to move together. True diversification involves risk factors — like inflation expectations, interest rates, liquidity, credit risks. These are the cycle-resistant factors.
3. Position management and balancing: As markets change, responding with better rules and strategies is better than following blindly. Markets won’t automatically profit us, but prepared rules might help us survive when others panic.

In the end, real safe-haven is about long-term survival, holding quality assets through extreme turbulence, and having a chance at the future. Thanks.

Eric:

I also strongly agree with what Domingo said. From my perspective, I think cash is king, with some diversified related assets.

Regarding current environment, I think the correlation sequence is: stocks first rise, then gold, then Bitcoin.

My suggested allocation for 2026 is:

• 30-40% cash
• 20-30% physical or tokenized gold
• 15-20% Bitcoin or high-risk tokens
• 15% commodities
• 5-10% stocks

This is my outlook for 2026, shared for reference.

A few personal tips: I’d wait for two signals before heavy Bitcoin allocation:

1. When Bitcoin weekly chart recovers to 90,000, I’ll consider increasing, but not now.
2. For gold, I’ll wait a week or two to see if 4,500 breaks, then consider increasing.

I will control strict stop-losses because I’m not very optimistic about the global economy in 2026. Managing risk to avoid black swans is key.

With so many uncertainties, I think preserving assets is more important than chasing profits. That’s my view.

Mark Ruo Mcrowe:

Thanks, host. I agree with both teachers. For example, Domingo mentioned “future credit,” and Eric said Bitcoin’s safe-haven is a false proposition — I think that’s fine.

In my view, Bitcoin’s overall definition is about its anti-inflation and anti-censorship properties. Calling it a safe haven is still a bit early. Of course, it can store value, and is a future credit form; this consensus might have greater utility later. When that time comes, it could become a very powerful safe-haven.

Now, considering the liquidity crisis: only when fiat confidence is damaged or hyperinflation occurs, will Bitcoin and gold have safe-haven attributes. This wave’s decline, besides the leverage liquidation I mentioned, hinges on Trump’s nomination of a new Fed chair — initially thought it might be Waller (supporting easing), but ultimately nominated Wosh (favoring rate hikes, dollar dominance). This caused expectations for gold and Bitcoin to fall, compounded by high leverage, leading to the crisis.

Today, Bitcoin’s role is more about anti-inflation — like in regions with hyperinflation or unstable currencies, people prefer stablecoins, USD, or Bitcoin. So it has value.

In institutions’ view, Bitcoin is more like a tech stock. Another key point: compared to other assets, Bitcoin is a 24/7 “ATM”. Why did this crash hit so hard and resist well? One big reason is that the crash happened over the weekend — traditional markets are closed, people need liquidity, panic selling occurs. Since weekends have low liquidity and no circuit breakers, with high leverage, liquidation is rapid. Institutions, resting in traditional markets, need liquidity and can only sell Bitcoin. So its safe-haven attribute seems practically dead.

But there’s good news: this wave, with Bitcoin and precious metals crashing together, including global stocks, actually confirms a view — Bitcoin has deeply integrated into the global financial system. People consider selling it to get liquidity, indirectly proving it’s a high-quality asset.

In liquidity terms, it’s a liquidity crisis supplement; its safe-haven attribute is somewhat lacking but not entirely absent. Whether in a time dimension or as a safe-haven, it’s still somewhat inferior, but it does have some safe-haven qualities. Calling it “digital gold” now might be premature. That’s my view.

Host Jesse:

Finally, the most concerned question for investors: in the face of synchronized shocks to traditional and non-traditional safe-haven assets, how should we diversify to face potentially higher future risks?

Domingo_gou:

Good question, host. When market rules keep changing, how can we protect our wealth?

Actually, I want to say, the market won’t give you a safe-haven asset that never falls. True safe-haven is about not being shaken out during turbulence.

Right now, the market signals an important point: liquidity is no longer an endless expansion but is contracting and being re-calibrated by systemic mechanisms. Under this, I think there are a few core points:

1. Cash is strategic: Cash isn’t useless; it’s a key strategic asset. In unstable global conditions, it’s a reserve ratio tool. When liquidity expectations tighten, having cash buffers reduces forced liquidation risk. In worst cases, cash gives us options.
2. Diversify risk factors, not just assets: Many hold Bitcoin, gold, stocks, etc., but if they’re all driven by the same systemic mechanism (like liquidity expectations), they tend to move together. True diversification involves risk factors — like inflation expectations, interest rates, liquidity, credit risks — these are the factors that resist cycles.
3. Position management and balancing: As markets change, responding with better rules and strategies is better than following blindly. Markets won’t automatically profit us, but with prepared rules, we might survive better when others panic.

In the end, real safe-haven is about long-term survival, holding quality assets through extreme turbulence, and having a chance at the future. Thanks.

Eric:

I also strongly agree with what Domingo said. From my perspective, I think cash is king, with some diversified related assets.

Regarding current environment, I think the correlation sequence is: stocks first rise, then gold, then Bitcoin.

My suggested allocation for 2026 is:

• 30-40% cash
• 20-30% physical or tokenized gold
• 15-20% Bitcoin or high-risk tokens
• 15% commodities
• 5-10% stocks

This is my outlook for 2026, shared for reference.

A few personal tips: I’d wait for two signals before heavy Bitcoin allocation:

1. When Bitcoin weekly chart recovers to 90,000, I’ll consider increasing, but not now.
2. For gold, I’ll wait a week or two to see if 4,500 breaks, then consider increasing.

I will control strict stop-losses because I’m not very optimistic about the global economy in 2026. Managing risk to avoid black swans is key.

With so many uncertainties, I think preserving assets is more important than chasing profits. That’s my view.

Mark Ruo Mcrowe:

Thanks, host. I agree with both teachers. For example, Domingo mentioned “future credit,” and Eric said Bitcoin’s safe-haven is a false proposition — I think that’s fine.

In my view, Bitcoin’s overall definition is about its anti-inflation and anti-censorship properties. Calling it a safe haven is still a bit early. Of course, it can store value, and is a future credit form; this consensus might have greater utility later. When that time comes, it could become a very powerful safe-haven.

Now, considering the liquidity crisis: only when fiat confidence is damaged or hyperinflation occurs, will Bitcoin and gold have safe-haven attributes. This wave’s decline, besides the leverage liquidation I mentioned, hinges on Trump’s nomination of a new Fed chair — initially thought it might be Waller (supporting easing), but ultimately nominated Wosh (favoring rate hikes, dollar dominance). This caused expectations for gold and Bitcoin to fall, compounded by high leverage, leading to the crisis.

Today, Bitcoin’s role is more about anti-inflation — like in regions with hyperinflation or unstable currencies, people prefer stablecoins, USD, or Bitcoin. So it has value.

In institutions’ view, Bitcoin is more like a tech stock. Another key point: compared to other assets, Bitcoin is a 24/7 “ATM”. Why did this crash hit so hard and resist well? One big reason is that the crash happened over the weekend — traditional markets are closed, people need liquidity, panic selling occurs. Since weekends have low liquidity and no circuit breakers, with high leverage, liquidation is rapid. Institutions, resting in traditional markets, need liquidity and can only sell Bitcoin. So its safe-haven attribute seems practically dead.

But there’s good news: this wave, with Bitcoin and precious metals crashing together, including global stocks, actually confirms a view — Bitcoin has deeply integrated into the global financial system. People consider selling it to get liquidity, indirectly proving it’s a high-quality asset.

In liquidity terms, it’s a liquidity crisis supplement; its safe-haven attribute is somewhat lacking but not entirely absent. Whether in a time dimension or as a safe-haven, it’s still somewhat inferior, but it does have some safe-haven qualities. Calling it “digital gold” now might be premature. That’s my view.

Host Jesse:

Finally, the most concerned question for investors: in the face of synchronized shocks to traditional and non-traditional safe-haven assets, how should we diversify to face potentially higher future risks?

Domingo_gou:

Good question, host. When market rules keep changing, how can we protect our wealth?

Actually, I want to say, the market won’t give you a safe-haven asset that never falls. True safe-haven is about not being shaken out during turbulence.

Right now, the market signals an important point: liquidity is no longer an endless expansion but is contracting and being re-calibrated by systemic mechanisms. Under this, I think there are a few core points:

1. Cash is strategic: Cash isn’t useless; it’s a key strategic asset. In unstable global conditions, it’s a reserve ratio tool. When liquidity expectations tighten, having cash buffers reduces forced liquidation risk. In worst cases, cash gives us options.
2. Diversify risk factors, not just assets: Many hold Bitcoin, gold, stocks, etc., but if they’re all driven by the same systemic mechanism (like liquidity expectations), they tend to move together. True diversification involves risk factors — like inflation expectations, interest rates, liquidity, credit risks — these are the factors that resist cycles.
3. Position management and balancing: As markets change, responding with better rules and strategies is better than following blindly. Markets won’t automatically profit us, but with prepared rules, we might survive better when others panic.

In the end, real safe-haven is about long-term survival, holding quality assets through extreme turbulence, and having a chance at the future. Thanks.

Eric:

I also strongly agree with what Domingo said. From my perspective, I think cash is king, with some diversified related assets.

Regarding current environment, I think the correlation sequence is: stocks first rise, then gold, then Bitcoin.

My suggested allocation for 2026 is:

• 30-40% cash
• 20-30% physical or tokenized gold
• 15-20% Bitcoin or high-risk tokens
• 15% commodities
• 5-10% stocks

This is my outlook for 2026, shared for reference.

A few personal tips: I’d wait for two signals before heavy Bitcoin allocation:

1. When Bitcoin weekly chart recovers to 90,000, I’ll consider increasing, but not now.
2. For gold, I’ll wait a week or two to see if 4,500 breaks, then consider increasing.

I will control strict stop-losses because I’m not very optimistic about the global economy in 2026. Managing risk to avoid black swans is key.

With so many uncertainties, I think preserving assets is more important than chasing profits. That’s my view.

Mark Ruo Mcrowe:

Thanks, host. I agree with both teachers. For example, Domingo mentioned “future credit,” and Eric said Bitcoin’s safe-haven is a false proposition — I think that’s fine.

In my view, Bitcoin’s overall definition is about its anti-inflation and anti-censorship properties. Calling it a safe haven is still a bit early. Of course, it can store value, and is a future credit form; this consensus might have greater utility later. When that time comes, it could become a very powerful safe-haven.

Now, considering the liquidity crisis: only when fiat confidence is damaged or hyperinflation occurs, will Bitcoin and gold have safe-haven attributes. This wave’s decline, besides the leverage liquidation I mentioned, hinges on Trump’s nomination of a new Fed chair — initially thought it might be Waller (supporting easing), but ultimately nominated Wosh (favoring rate hikes, dollar dominance). This caused expectations for gold and Bitcoin to fall, compounded by high leverage, leading to the crisis.

Today, Bitcoin’s role is more about anti-inflation — like in regions with hyperinflation or unstable currencies, people prefer stablecoins, USD, or Bitcoin. So it has value.

In institutions’ view, Bitcoin is more like a tech stock. Another key point: compared to other assets, Bitcoin is a 24/7 “ATM”. Why did this crash hit so hard and resist well? One big reason is that the crash happened over the weekend — traditional markets are closed, people need liquidity, panic selling occurs. Since weekends have low liquidity and no circuit breakers, with high leverage, liquidation is rapid. Institutions, resting in traditional markets, need liquidity and can only sell Bitcoin. So its safe-haven attribute seems practically dead.

But there’s good news: this wave, with Bitcoin and precious metals crashing together, including global stocks, actually confirms a view — Bitcoin has deeply integrated into the global financial system. People consider selling it to get liquidity, indirectly proving it’s a high-quality asset.

In liquidity terms, it’s a liquidity crisis supplement; its safe-haven attribute is somewhat lacking but not entirely absent. Whether in a time dimension or as a safe-haven, it’s still somewhat inferior, but it does have some safe-haven qualities. Calling it “digital gold” now might be premature. That’s my view.

Host Jesse:

Finally, the most concerned question for investors: in the face of synchronized shocks to traditional and non-traditional safe-haven assets, how should we diversify to face potentially higher future risks?

Domingo_gou:

Good question, host. When market rules keep changing, how can we protect our wealth?

Actually, I want to say, the market won’t give you a safe-haven asset that never falls. True safe-haven is about not being shaken out during turbulence.

Right now, the market signals an important point: liquidity is no longer an endless expansion but is contracting and being re-calibrated by systemic mechanisms. Under this, I think there are a few core points:

1. Cash is strategic: Cash isn’t useless; it’s a key strategic asset. In unstable global conditions, it’s a reserve ratio tool. When liquidity expectations tighten, having cash buffers reduces forced liquidation risk. In worst cases, cash gives us options.
2. Diversify risk factors, not just assets: Many hold Bitcoin, gold, stocks, etc., but if they’re all driven by the same systemic mechanism (like liquidity expectations), they tend to move together. True diversification involves risk factors — like inflation expectations, interest rates, liquidity, credit risks — these are the factors that resist cycles.
3. Position management and balancing: As markets change, responding with better rules and strategies is better than following blindly. Markets won’t automatically profit us, but with prepared rules, we might survive better when others panic.

In the end, real safe-haven is about long-term survival, holding quality assets through extreme turbulence, and having a chance at the future. Thanks.

Eric:

I also strongly agree with what Domingo said. From my perspective, I think cash is king, with some diversified related assets.

Regarding current environment, I think the correlation sequence is: stocks first rise, then gold, then Bitcoin.

My suggested allocation for 2026 is:

• 30-40% cash
• 20-30% physical or tokenized gold
• 15-20% Bitcoin or high-risk tokens
• 15% commodities
• 5-10% stocks

This is my outlook for 2026, shared for reference.

A few personal tips: I’d wait for two signals before heavy Bitcoin allocation:

1. When Bitcoin weekly chart recovers to 90,000, I’ll consider increasing, but not now.
2. For gold, I’ll wait a week or two to see if 4,500 breaks, then consider increasing.

I will control strict stop-losses because I’m not very optimistic about the global economy in 2026. Managing risk to avoid black swans is key.

With so many uncertainties, I think preserving assets is more important than chasing profits. That’s my view.

Mark Ruo Mcrowe:

Thanks, host. I agree with both teachers. For example, Domingo mentioned “future credit,” and Eric said Bitcoin’s safe-haven is a false proposition — I think that’s fine.

In my view, Bitcoin’s overall definition is about its anti-inflation and anti-censorship properties. Calling it a safe haven is still a bit early. Of course, it can store value, and is a future credit form; this consensus might have greater utility later. When that time comes, it could become a very powerful safe-haven.

Now, considering the liquidity crisis: only when fiat confidence is damaged or hyperinflation occurs,