The digital gold narrative is under pressure amid the Hormuz crisis: Why are BTC and gold diverging in their trends?

On April 13, 2026, the U.S. officially implemented a blockade on maritime traffic to Iran. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps responded immediately, with the Strait of Hormuz under control and warning that any military vessels approaching would be considered a violation of the ceasefire agreement. This critical chokepoint, which accounts for about 20% of global oil trade, has since entered a state of “controlled and unstable.”

Amid the turbulent geopolitical waves, an unexpected phenomenon for the traditional financial world is emerging: systemic selling of safe-haven assets like gold and silver, while Bitcoin, only a decade old, is strengthening against the trend. Since the outbreak of this round of Iran conflict 32 days ago, Bitcoin has risen over 1%, while gold has fallen about 13% and silver about 22% in the same period.

When Bridgewater founder Ray Dalio warned that “the world is entering a war cycle,” and sovereign nations first demanded Bitcoin payments for transit fees through the Strait of Hormuz, the narrative of Bitcoin as “digital gold” is facing an unprecedented stress test.

Strait of Hormuz Standoff: From Ceasefire Illusion to Blockade Enforcement

By the end of February 2026, a comprehensive military conflict erupted among the US, Israel, and Iran, marking the most tense phase in Middle Eastern affairs since the 21st century. Over the following month, the conflict continued to ferment across multiple dimensions:

April 7, under Pakistan’s mediation, the US and Iran reached a two-week temporary ceasefire agreement. The market initially interpreted this as a diplomatic signal, leading to a rebound in global risk assets—Dow Jones, S&P 500, and Nasdaq gained 3.04%, 3.56%, and 4.68% respectively for the week.

However, the fragility of the ceasefire was quickly exposed. On the day it took effect, Israel launched a large-scale airstrike on Lebanon, with Netanyahu stating “the ceasefire does not include Hezbollah.” Iran responded by once again closing the Strait of Hormuz.

April 12, US-Iran negotiations in Islamabad ended without result. Iran disclosed that the US proposed three core demands: “equal sharing of benefits” in the profits and management of the Strait of Hormuz, exporting all 60% enriched uranium abroad, and stripping Iran of uranium enrichment rights for the next 20 years. Iran rejected all three.

April 13, the US Navy officially imposed a blockade on maritime traffic entering and leaving Iranian ports. The IRGC announced control over the strait and released drone surveillance footage. Although no direct conflict occurred, maritime analysis firm Windward reported that the Strait of Hormuz is now in a “controlled and unstable” state, with increasing risks of direct conflict among state actors.

April 14, a UN Conference on Trade and Development report showed that vessel transits through the Strait of Hormuz dropped from about 130 ships daily in February to only 6 in March, a decline of approximately 95%. The International Energy Agency noted that crude oil and refined product exports via the strait have plummeted from pre-war levels of about 20 million barrels per day to a “trickle.”

Bitcoin and Gold Moving in Opposite Directions

In this crisis, Bitcoin and traditional safe-haven assets have shown a significant divergence. As of April 14, 2026, the data is as follows:

According to Gate.io market data, as of April 14, 2026, Bitcoin is priced at $74,401, with a market cap of approximately $1.33 trillion, accounting for 55.27% of the market.

Since the outbreak of the US-Iran conflict, COMEX gold prices have fallen as much as 24%, and silver by over 35%. JPMorgan reports nearly $11 billion in outflows from gold ETFs. Conversely, Bitcoin saw initial inflows of $1.7 billion from March 2 to 17, absorbing the macro shock early on. On-chain data shows that global exchange-held Bitcoin reserves have fallen to about 2.69 million coins, a near three-year low, with daily outflows of 60,000 to 70,000 BTC. This “rising price, shrinking supply” pattern indicates Bitcoin is undergoing a structural shift from exchange trading to long-term custody.

Public Sentiment Divergence: Morgan Stanley Bullish vs. Peter Schiff Bearish

Market interpretations of Bitcoin’s performance in this round have polarized into two camps.

The bullish camp, led by Morgan Stanley, notes that in the context of the Iran conflict, Bitcoin exhibits safe-haven characteristics similar to gold and silver, showing greater resilience. Analysts believe that gold and silver had already been at high levels, and with rising interest rates and a strengthening dollar, profit-taking and position reduction occurred. Bitcoin’s features—strong cross-border liquidity, support for self-custody, and 24/7 trading—make it an important capital transfer tool in times of economic instability and capital controls.

GSR Asset Management Managing Director Andy Baehr also pointed out that during the early conflict, Bitcoin rose about 4%, while oil prices surged over 70%, and global stock markets experienced sell-offs. “In fact, Bitcoin is acting like a safe haven.”

The bearish camp, represented by gold supporter Peter Schiff, predicts a “collapse” of Bitcoin, asserting that gold remains the only true safe-haven asset during wartime. He warns that if the US follows through on threats to “completely destroy” Iran, stock and crypto markets will almost certainly sell off in tandem.

Analyst Nic Puckrin takes a middle ground, believing Bitcoin’s current recovery is fragile, and that the market trend in Q2 2026 will be dominated by Middle East geopolitical tensions and macroeconomic pressures. Despite often being labeled “digital gold,” Bitcoin’s correlation with risk assets tends to increase during periods of broad geopolitical uncertainty.

Is Digital Gold a Misinterpretation or Empirical Evidence?

This conflict provides a real-world test for the “digital gold” narrative. Alex Thorn, head of research at Galaxy Digital, previously pointed out that when Bitcoin enthusiasts refer to “digital gold,” they describe Bitcoin’s monetary properties—scarcity, transferability, durability—rather than promising its price to move in lockstep with gold.

However, this conflict offers empirical data beyond theoretical discussion:

First, fund flow reversal. Historically, gold ETF and Bitcoin ETF flows moved roughly in the same direction, but since the escalation of conflict on February 27, their flows have diverged significantly for the first time, which Morgan Stanley calls a “decoupling.”

Second, strengthening of super-sovereign asset narrative. Iran’s demand for Bitcoin payments for transit fees through the Strait of Hormuz—$1 per barrel, with a single tanker costing up to $2 million—marks the first time sovereign states have used Bitcoin in real-time trade to bypass traditional financial systems. This sets a precedent for cryptocurrencies serving as settlement media in geopolitical conflicts.

Third, structural supply contraction. Exchange-held Bitcoin reserves have fallen to a near three-year low of 2.69 million coins, indicating large holders are transferring assets to cold wallets for long-term holding. Institutional funds continue to buy during price dips rather than panic selling.

However, counter-narratives are also notable: Bitcoin’s correlation with WTI crude oil has risen to 0.68, indicating its risk asset attributes remain significant. The decline in gold is partly due to its already high historical levels, with geopolitical conflicts triggering profit-taking. Objectively, the “digital gold” narrative has neither been fully confirmed nor completely invalidated in this conflict. It is undergoing a transition from a theoretical label to empirical validation—this process itself is a key step toward narrative maturity.

War Cycle Framework: Ray Dalio’s Structural Deduction

To elevate the above discussion from short-term market fluctuations to a structural level, Ray Dalio’s macro cycle framework must be introduced.

In early April 2026, Dalio explicitly stated: “We are in a world war that will not end quickly.” He pointed out that the US-Israel-Iran conflict should not be seen as a controllable regional crisis but as part of a broader collapse of the global order, following the same pattern as pre-World War conflicts.

Dalio dissected the multi-layered structure of the current situation: re-dividing camps, escalating trade and capital conflicts, “weaponization” of key channels, simultaneous multi-theater conflicts, and domestic political and financial system pressures. He emphasized that control over the Strait of Hormuz will have profound implications—it’s not just about oil prices but also whether the dollar system’s pricing power over critical global channels is loosening.

Within Dalio’s cycle framework, the outcome of war depends not on absolute strength but on each side’s capacity for sustained long-term consumption. This shifts the analysis from “who is stronger” to “who can endure longer,” placing the US in a complex position—it is the most powerful country but also the most “overextended” in its global commitments.

For Bitcoin’s “digital gold” narrative, Dalio’s framework offers two key insights:

First, as the dollar system, geopolitical order, and financial system come under simultaneous pressure, the structural demand for “non-sovereign, censorship-resistant” stores of value will rise. Bitcoin is the most liquid candidate in this trend.

Second, in the war cycle, financial repression—capital controls, foreign exchange restrictions, money printing—may accelerate Bitcoin’s transition from “risk asset” to “crisis asset.” Dalio warns that governments may resort to “massive tax hikes, debt issuance, money creation, foreign exchange controls, capital controls, and financial repression to finance war,” or even “close markets.” In such extreme scenarios, Bitcoin’s self-custody and cross-border transfer capabilities will have advantages that gold cannot match.

Conclusion

The crisis in the Strait of Hormuz is far more than a geopolitical flashpoint. Under Dalio’s war cycle framework, it is a convergence point of the triple裂变 of dollar order, energy order, and financial order.

The “digital gold” narrative has been more of an identity tag within the crypto community over the past decade. This conflict is the first time it has been tested under real-world pressure: Bitcoin rises while gold falls, ETF flows reverse, sovereigns bypass sanctions with BTC, on-chain supply continues to shrink—these signals collectively point in the same direction: Bitcoin’s “safe-haven” attribute is moving from theory to empirical evidence.