On January 29, 2026, the weakening of the US dollar combined with multiple geopolitical conflicts pushed gold and silver onto the stage of extreme surges: according to a single source, gold once soared to about $5540 per ounce, with silver's annual increase around 64%. Just as more and more people immersed themselves in the euphoric sentiment of "precious metals being the only right choice," veteran technical trader Peter Brandt chose to reduce his positions at high levels, describing this surge as "obscene" while questioning himself, "How much profit is enough?" Parallel to the price dimension is the undercurrent of regulatory concerns: the SEC tightening SPAC reviews and strengthening its focus on digital assets and tokenization, combined with the ongoing "salon game" between institutions and regulators, has put high-risk assets under pressure. The net outflow of approximately $19.6449 million from Bitcoin spot ETF in a single day serves as a footnote to this hidden line. Currently, the extreme surge in precious metals, regulatory shadows, and outflows of crypto funds have coalesced into a force, and the question is no longer "Is the bull market here?" but rather—how far is this round of precious metal euphoria from a turning point?
A Veteran Technical Trader Presses the Reduce Position Button at High Levels
● Actions and Self-Questioning: In late January, Peter Brandt publicly stated that he had partially liquidated his long positions in precious metals like silver, repeatedly reminding himself and his readers with the question, "How much profit is enough?" This statement is not merely a declaration of victory but places "locking in profits" above "betting on the last surge," showing that in extreme market conditions, he is more concerned about the risk-reward ratio rather than pursuing the perfect peak of his account curve.
● The Line of "Obscene": Brandt quoted Dan Markey, referring to this round of precious metal surges as "obscene"—not simply "strong," but rather "excessive and distorted." This wording suggests that within his risk-reward framework, the current prices of silver and gold have significantly deviated from the "comfort zone." Even if the trend objectively still has the potential to extend, he prefers to first pull back some chips to a safe zone rather than continue to increase positions on an already steep slope.
● The Inertia and Restraint of Trend Traders: From commodities to crypto assets, Brandt has long adhered to a trend-following trading method, accustomed to patiently holding after a major trend forms, rather than counter-trend sniping at highs. Because of this, his current choice is partial profit-taking rather than a full liquidation or a short position, indicating that in his system, this is more like "taking some chips off the table" rather than concluding that the market has completed its final peak signal.
● The Starting Point of Rational Capital's Netting: Rather than interpreting Brandt's actions as "the absolute top has arrived," it is more appropriate to view it as the narrative starting point of "rational capital beginning to net." When prices stray far from fundamental pricing anchors and volatility significantly amplifies, seasoned capital will first take away some chips to reduce their exposure in subsequent violent fluctuations; this conveys not a prophecy of "imminent collapse," but an attitude of beginning to price tail risks.
Gold and Silver Surge: Imbalance and Fragility Behind the Data
● A Singular Perspective on Extreme Gains: According to a single source, gold prices surged to about $5540 per ounce on January 29, with a daily increase of about 2.3%, and silver's cumulative increase since 2026 is around 64%. Such numbers are already in the extreme range of traditional precious metal markets. It is important to note that these data currently mainly come from a single channel and await cross-verification from multiple trading platforms and spot pricing services; single-point data should not be viewed as definitive proof of a "new normal."
● Misalignment of Price and Fundamentals: From a macro perspective, the weakening of the dollar and the resurgence of safe-haven demand indeed provide upward momentum for precious metals, but the price slope has clearly run ahead of most fundamental indicators. Whether it is the real demand for silver from global industries or the pace of gold reserves by central banks, it is difficult to explain such a "steepening" trend in such a short time, indicating that what drives prices more are expectations and leverage, rather than the real flow of inventory and consumption.
● Why Capital is Flowing In at This Moment: Geopolitical risks are heating up in multiple regions, combined with fluctuating expectations of US monetary policy and a weakening dollar index, leading to a reshuffling of major assets. For global capital, gold and silver at this moment serve a dual role of "hedging against currency depreciation" and "hedging against extreme geopolitical risks," while the regulatory scrutiny of certain high-risk assets (especially digital assets) has inadvertently driven some institutional capital back from marginal assets to the "traditional safe haven pool," amplifying the sensitivity of precious metal prices to marginal capital inflows.
● The Symmetry of Expanding Gains and Amplified Retracements: When price gains far exceed the range explainable by traditional asset pricing frameworks, market volatility often exhibits symmetrical amplification—it can be "distorted" on the way up and "plummet" on the way down. In an environment with high leverage and an increasing proportion of emotional participants, once the narrative weakens (such as geopolitical tensions easing, a dollar rebound, or changes in regulatory tone), the speed and magnitude of retracements can deviate from past norms, which is why more and more professional traders choose to "pull back some chips first."
The Regulatory Salon: The Game Between the SEC and Wall Street
● Upgraded SPAC Reviews and Focus on Tokenization: Recently, the SEC has clearly intensified its scrutiny of the SPAC listing process, raising higher requirements for information disclosure, valuation assumptions, and compliance of acquisition targets. At the same time, the regulatory body has shown greater sensitivity and more frequent inquiries regarding products and structural arrangements related to digital assets and tokenized securities, creating an atmosphere perceived by Wall Street as a "covert deleveraging" of risk-sensitive assets.
● Compliance Anxiety in the Salon: Large financial institutions, including JPMorgan, are communicating and lobbying with the SEC regarding the regulatory boundaries of digital assets and tokenization businesses. On one hand, they hope to maintain competitiveness and expand revenue in the new asset space, while on the other hand, they fear crossing yet-to-be-defined red lines. This tug-of-war places both compliance and business departments under high pressure—compliance meetings have become more frequent, and the weight of "capital occupation and compliance costs" in product design has been passively elevated.
● How Regulation Elevates Preference for Precious Metals: When the SEC imposes stricter capital constraints and compliance requirements on high-volatility products, complex structures, and on-chain assets, institutions are forced to recalculate "the cost of every unit of risk" in their asset allocation. Within this framework, traditional safe-haven assets like gold and silver, although having limited yield elasticity, have lower "costs" in terms of capital occupation and regulatory uncertainty, thus passively benefiting in relative comparisons—not because they suddenly became more attractive, but because other assets have been "cooled down."
● Undefined Attitudes and Defensive Migration: It is important to emphasize that the SEC's attitude towards digital assets and tokenization is still in the forming process, with details and exemption paths far from fully clarified. In this uncertainty, institutions often adopt a "two-pronged approach": on one hand, they continue to communicate with regulators to seek a more operable framework; on the other hand, they increase their holdings in precious metals, government bonds, and other assets that are seen as "regulatory-friendly" in the short to medium term, to guard against any sudden policy adjustments that could cause unexpected shocks to their balance sheets.
Bitcoin Fund Outflows: Repricing of the Safe-Haven Narrative
● The Implication of $19.6449 Million Net Outflow: According to a single source, Bitcoin spot ETF recorded a net outflow of approximately $19.6449 million on January 29. In absolute terms, this figure does not constitute a "run," but against the backdrop of significant increases in precious metals, it provides an important clue—short-term capital is reassessing the cost-effectiveness of "digital safe-haven" versus "traditional safe-haven." It is important to note that interpreting this data still requires comparison with longer-term subscription and redemption situations and should not be viewed in isolation as a definitive trend reversal.
● Structural Pressure and Fragile Chips: After experiencing significant volatility earlier, Bitcoin's market currently has a high proportion of short-term holders, with intertwined floating profits and losses, leading to significant structural pressure. When macro sentiment swings and regulatory signals tighten, funds in high leverage or short-term speculative positions are more likely to choose to "exit and observe" during fluctuations, resulting in sustained small net outflows from channels like ETFs. This does not directly negate Bitcoin's long-term narrative but is a natural response of short-term capital to retracement risks.
● The Oscillation Between Digital and Traditional Safe Havens: In recent years, Bitcoin has been continuously marketed as "digital gold," attempting to stand alongside precious metals in the safe-haven narrative. However, when traditional risk factors like geopolitical conflicts and a weakening dollar strengthen, capital finds the pricing paths and historical performance of "established safe-haven assets" more referable, while the recent rapid surge in precious metals further attracts funds chasing trends and leverage, creating a back-and-forth oscillation and repricing process between the two types of safe-haven stories.
● Dynamic Rebalancing of Multi-Assets: It is important to be cautious about simply interpreting the current capital flows as a one-way replacement of "abandoning Bitcoin and embracing gold and silver." A more reasonable perspective is that, in an environment of macro uncertainty and regulatory shadows, institutions and some individual investors are engaged in dynamic rebalancing of multi-asset portfolios: reducing exposure to regulatory-sensitive and highly volatile assets while increasing the weight of assets viewed as "institutionally friendly," and this rebalancing will continuously adjust with changes in policy, interest rates, and geopolitical variables.
Between Greed and Fear: The Difficult Choices of Traders
● The Psychological Inquiry of "How Much Profit is Enough": Brandt's question of "How much profit is enough?" is not just motivational talk but a question every trader must confront in extreme market conditions. When paper profits rapidly swell, greed drives people to chase "the last explosive segment," while fear reminds them that "any retracement could swallow most of the gains," with both emotions pulling at high levels. Ultimately, whether one can survive in high volatility often depends on the willingness to accept a choice of "having regrets but being safe" at points that "seem to still offer more profit."
● Strategy Differentiation Based on Different Capital Attributes: Precious metals and Bitcoin exhibit significant differences in volatility, liquidity structure, and participant composition. Short-term capital prefers to "quick in and out" in high-volatility assets, often gradually reducing positions during volume surges and emotional highs, shortening holding periods through profit-taking; while long-term allocation capital tends to make slower-paced weight adjustments between precious metals and Bitcoin based on asset correlation, real interest rates, and regulatory predictability. This differentiation means that behind the same price curve, there are actually multiple distinct trading scripts.
● Assessing Risks Amid Uncertain Regulation and High Prices: When regulatory directions are unclear and prices are at historical highs, retracement risks and liquidity risks often "compound and amplify." On one hand, any negative news could trigger concentrated exits from profit-taking; on the other hand, liquidity highly concentrated in a few channels and products can easily amplify the "plunge effect" on prices if faced with unilateral outflows. For traders, at this time, it is not only necessary to ask "How much more can it rise?" but also to calmly assess "If there is a 20%-30% retracement, can I withstand it?"
● Do Not Mistake Others' Profit-Taking for Your Own Script: Peter Brandt's reduction in positions has garnered attention due to his long-standing stable trend trading record and market reputation. However, it is important to emphasize that the choices of a single star trader cannot be directly transferred as the optimal solution for every investor. Different capital scales, leverage levels, time horizons, and risk tolerances determine that the "correct profit-taking point" can vary widely. Treating others' position adjustments as your own roadmap may provide psychological comfort but may not suit your capital structure.
The Path After the Eye of the Storm: The Role Rotation of Precious Metals and Bitcoin
● Triple Tensions Constitute the Current Landscape: Looking back at the entire picture, the current market is being pulled by three forces simultaneously—the extreme surge of precious metals, the ongoing regulatory game, and the phased outflow of crypto funds. These are not independent storylines but are interconnected within the same macro and policy coordinate system: regulatory tightening boosts traditional safe-haven preferences, the rise in precious metals absorbs some risk appetite, which in turn compresses the valuation space of high-volatility assets.
● Potential Rotation of Safe-Haven Roles: In the near future, the relative positions of precious metals and Bitcoin in their "safe-haven roles" are likely to change with the temperature of geopolitical risks, the trend of the dollar, and the clarity of regulations. When geopolitical conflicts ease, the dollar stabilizes, and the regulatory framework becomes clearer, some of the funds currently flowing into gold and silver may reassess the elastic value of "digital assets" like Bitcoin; conversely, if uncertainty continues to accumulate, the pull of traditional safe-haven pools will remain high.
● Short-Term Volatility and Medium-Long Term Anchors: In the short term, both precious metals and Bitcoin may face more severe volatility and emotional fluctuations—after extreme gains, any slight movement can trigger a violent reshuffle that harms both bulls and bears. In the medium to long term, what truly determines their relative performance will still be the trajectory of real interest rates, the path of monetary policy, and the evolution of the institutional environment: whether it leads to greater regulatory clarity and milder inflation, or continues to oscillate amid uncertainty and high debt, will shape the asset pricing framework for the coming years.
● Ending with Restraint, Not Victory in Prediction: Peter Brandt's reduction of positions at high levels does not attempt to declare that he "precisely called the top," but rather demonstrates a rarer quality in extreme market conditions—restraint. Instead of fixating on the myth of "guessing the absolute top," it is better to focus on how to maintain flexibility amid uncertainty: taking profits in stages, reducing leverage, and allowing positions to fluctuate within a bearable range. After the storm, it is often not those who shout the correct extreme points that remain, but those participants who manage to preserve their capital and mindset amid severe volatility.
Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
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。
