Asset performance comparison 60 days after major crises: Is Bitcoin's safe-haven property surpassing gold?

Brazilian cryptocurrency exchange Mercado Bitcoin recently released a study that systematically analyzes the 60-day window following economic or geopolitical shocks, finding that Bitcoin outperformed gold and the S&P 500 in each analyzed period. The study covers multiple major shock scenarios, including the COVID-19 outbreak, the U.S. tariff escalation in 2025, and the current U.S.-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 of 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,” not the immediate performance on the day of the crisis. This means Bitcoin’s relative advantage is not reflected in its instant safe-haven properties but in its medium-term re-pricing and adjustment. For investors, this distinction is crucial—liquidity crunches early in a shock may suppress all asset prices, including traditional safe havens like gold.

Data Evidence from the 60-Day Window: How Three Major Events Confirm This Pattern

Three independent geopolitical and economic shocks provide cross-validated data supporting this pattern.

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

The second is the U.S. 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 days, compared to only 8% for gold and 4% for the S&P 500, widening the gap further.

The third case is the current situation. In February 2026, after the U.S.-Israel joint military action against Iran, Middle East tensions sharply worsened. As of the study release, Bitcoin had already gained over 2.2% since the conflict erupted, rising from about $65,800 to $67,300, making it the only asset among the three to record positive returns; gold fell about 11%, and the S&P 500 declined roughly 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 Show Divergent Performance During Crises? The “Failure” of Traditional Safe-Havens

Gold is often regarded as the ultimate safe-haven asset in market analysis, but during the recent U.S.-Iran conflict-induced volatility, gold prices declined significantly. This phenomenon is not isolated—after the 2025 tariff shock, gold only gained 8% over 60 days, 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 near historic highs, approaching $5,600 per ounce; but in February and March, amid escalating Middle East tensions and hawkish shifts in Federal Reserve monetary policy expectations, gold prices quickly retreated, briefly falling below $4,318 per ounce, with a maximum decline of over 18%. The Fed’s March rate decision kept the benchmark rate at 3.5% to 3.75%, and market expectations for rate cuts this year dropped from 2-3 times to just once, with the first cut delayed to Q4, increasing the opportunity cost of holding gold.

In other words, the safe-haven function of gold has experienced a phase of failure under the combined pressures 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 context.

Is Bitcoin “Digital Gold” or “Risk Asset”? Academic Research Reveals Its Dual Nature

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), with Bitcoin showing low correlation with the broader market. However, during the Trump 2.0 era, this similarity significantly declined, and Bitcoin shifted toward behavior akin to high-risk growth assets.

The key insight is that Bitcoin’s “safe-haven” properties are not fixed but evolve dynamically with market structure, regulation, and investor composition. After the acceleration of institutional entry in 2025, Bitcoin’s market correlation increased, partially diluting its traditional safe-haven attributes. Nonetheless, its medium-term recovery ability after shocks remains notable, exhibiting a “strong post-shock rebound” rather than stability during the shock itself. The study’s lead author emphasizes that judging asset qualities solely based on post-crisis performance is risky—initial liquidity demands during shocks can cause all assets, including gold, to decline simultaneously. Therefore, investors should distinguish between “safe-haven during shocks” and “recovery after shocks” across different timeframes.

Institutional Capital and Regulatory Framework: Structural Changes in the Bitcoin Market in 2026

The evolution of Bitcoin’s asset characteristics is closely tied to profound market structural changes. In 2025, the global crypto market saw nearly $130 billion in inflows, a one-third increase over 2024, reaching a record high. Notably, corporate treasuries contributed about $68 billion, accounting for over half of the inflows, 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 is shifting from “rule-making” to “implementation.” PwC’s 2026 Global Cryptocurrency Regulations Report notes that stablecoin regulation has entered the enforcement phase, with many countries requiring reserve deposits and redemption mechanisms; the U.S. Senate has advanced legislation on digital asset market structure, and the EU continues to issue detailed regulations under the MiCA framework.

The deepening involvement of institutions and the gradual refinement of regulatory frameworks are changing Bitcoin’s pricing logic. Market participants are transitioning from retail and speculative capital to a diversified mix including sovereign wealth funds, pension funds, and traditional financial institutions. This shift enhances market depth but may also weaken Bitcoin’s independent pricing capacity during extreme shocks—since institutional behavior tends to reduce risk exposure synchronously during systemic risks.

Macro Attribution: Stagflation Risks, Geopolitical Conflicts, and Fed Policies in Resonance

Bitcoin’s relative outperformance over gold and U.S. stocks after major shocks is driven by deep macroeconomic factors. The current global macro environment is experiencing a triple resonance:

First, stagflation risks are accelerating. Goldman Sachs has raised the probability of a U.S. recession in the next 12 months to 30%, with Q3 GDP growth projected at only 1.25%–1.75%. Meanwhile, Middle East conflicts have pushed crude oil prices above $100 per barrel, significantly increasing inflationary pressures and complicating the Fed’s dilemma of balancing rate hikes and cuts.

Second, systemic escalation of geopolitical conflicts. The IMF and World Bank have characterized the Middle East tensions as the “third major shock” after COVID-19 and the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz threaten energy transportation, and Goldman Sachs estimates this round of conflict could reduce global GDP growth by about 0.4 percentage points, with extreme scenarios potentially halving that impact.

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 supply cap of 21 million coins, similar to gold’s scarcity, gives it a “digital scarcity” narrative as a store of value amid loose monetary policies and expanding fiscal deficits.

Pre-Shock Risk Warnings: The True 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 in late 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, in the $55,000–$60,000 range.

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

Summary

Analyzing data from three major shocks, Bitcoin’s advantage over gold and the S&P 500 within the 60-day window post-shock is not coincidental. This pattern results from multiple factors: Bitcoin’s scarcity and decentralized supply support its narrative as “digital gold” during loose monetary cycles; its low correlation with traditional assets (though rising with institutionalization) provides diversification benefits amid macro uncertainty; and despite high volatility increasing downside risks, its resilience during recovery phases surpasses that of traditional assets.

However, Bitcoin’s “outperformance after shocks” does not mean it is a “safe haven during shocks.” Investors must distinguish between two different timeframes: liquidity crunches early in shocks may cause all assets to decline simultaneously, while medium-term recovery advantages depend 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 capital resonance in 2026, these features may be further reinforced, but the accompanying volatility risk should not be overlooked.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q: Why can Bitcoin outperform gold after major shocks?

A: Bitcoin’s relative advantage within the 60-day window post-shock mainly stems from its higher volatility, which offers greater recovery elasticity, its decoupling from fiat currency systems, and the narrative of digital scarcity during market recovery phases. Additionally, ongoing institutional inflows provide a deeper liquidity foundation.

Q: Has gold’s safe-haven property become invalid?

A: Not entirely. The decline in gold prices during the U.S.-Iran conflict initially reflected Fed tightening expectations, profit-taking, and a shift in geopolitical risk pricing. Gold’s long-term safe-haven function remains intact, but its short-term performance is highly dependent on shock type and macro conditions. In stagflation scenarios with high interest rates and inflation, gold’s safe-haven capacity may be temporarily suppressed.

Q: How should investors allocate assets between Bitcoin and gold?

A: Gold emphasizes capital preservation and volatility control, while Bitcoin focuses on growth resilience and medium-term recovery. Asset allocation should be based on risk tolerance and investment horizon—short-term safe-haven needs align more with gold, while medium- to long-term structural opportunities favor Bitcoin. They are not substitutes but complementary diversification tools.

Q: Does the current U.S.-Iran conflict still follow the “60-day outperformance” pattern?

A: As of April 13, 2026, Bitcoin has already recorded positive returns since the conflict erupted, while gold and the S&P 500 declined, consistent with the historical pattern. However, the 60-day window is not yet complete, and past patterns do not guarantee future results. The duration and severity of the conflict, as well as Fed policy changes, could influence outcomes.

Q: Does Bitcoin’s high volatility mean the “outperformance after shocks” strategy is impractical?

A: It depends on the investor’s approach. Long-term holders may see the post-shock outperformance as high return potential during recovery, but must tolerate significant early declines. Short-term traders face difficulty timing entry and exit precisely within the 60-day window. Therefore, this observation is more suitable as a reference for medium- to long-term asset allocation rather than short-term trading signals.