In 2025, the precious metals market experienced a frenzy, with silver breaking through the $50 range in late November and soaring parabolically, reaching a historic high of $72 per ounce on December 24, marking a 143% increase for the year. Gold also touched $4,524.30 per ounce on the same day, with an annual increase of 70%.

In stark contrast, Bitcoin was reported at $87,498 at the time of writing, down 8% for the year, and down 30% from its peak of $126,000 in October.

This has left supporters of Bitcoin's "digital gold" narrative pondering, as the macro trends driving the rise in precious metals do not seem to translate to the crypto market.

The core drivers of the rise in precious metals stem from a weakening dollar, expectations of interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve in 2026, and rising geopolitical risks, which are the favorable conditions that Bitcoin supporters have long anticipated.

However, when it comes to risk-averse allocations, the market prefers tangible hedging tools like gold and silver, which have a century of credibility. Central banks around the world have increased their gold reserves throughout the year, and retail funds have shifted towards physical precious metals after Bitcoin's decline at the beginning of the year.

Multiple studies in 2025 confirmed that gold exhibits more stable hedging performance amid various macro shocks, while Bitcoin is often a high-beta risk asset, positively correlated with stocks, and has not led in this trading cycle.

The structural demand differences further widen the gap between the two. The rise in silver is not only due to safe-haven demand but also benefits from record demand in industrial sectors such as photovoltaics and electronics. The scarcity of substitutes in the supply chain has intensified supply tightness, creating dual support from both macro and industrial perspectives.

In contrast, Bitcoin lacks industrial use, with demand concentrated in financial speculation and on-chain settlements, lacking a buffer from physical demand. This asymmetry means that even if interest rate cuts stall and risk appetite cools, silver still has industrial demand to support it, while Bitcoin can only rely on ETF funds to absorb selling pressure. With current capital flows turning negative, its support has weakened.

The surge in silver serves as a macro barometer rather than a trading signal; it confirms the market's pricing of low real interest rates and a weak dollar, but also highlights that Bitcoin has yet to integrate into the hard asset trading system.

For Bitcoin to reverse its downward trend, it needs improved regulatory clarity to drive institutional reallocation, a recovery in retail sentiment, or the highlighting of its anti-censorship and programmability features under macro shocks.

It is important to be cautious, as silver has become relatively crowded, and a shift in the Federal Reserve's hawkish stance could trigger asset volatility, indirectly impacting Bitcoin.

The divergence in 2025 proves that "hard assets" cannot yet be linked to Bitcoin. Silver combines industrial demand with institutional credibility, while gold has institutional credibility and narrative momentum. Bitcoin is still striving for institutional recognition and will never possess industrial attributes.

However, this does not negate Bitcoin's value; it simply means that for it to outperform, additional conditions must be met. Once those conditions are fulfilled, its potential for growth may still exceed that of precious metals.

Before that happens, we need to understand that macro positives have not yet driven the crypto market, and Bitcoin still has a way to go before becoming a hard asset.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。