The main argument against Bitcoin’s safety as a store of value is the estimated cost to mount a 51% attack—about $6 billion—making the network technically vulnerable. After asset prices plunged on October 10 last year, this theory gained traction. Yet recently, Bitcoin investors have pushed back against that view.
Following the U.S. airstrikes on Iran on the 28th (local time), Bitcoin showed unusual price movements. From then until the 23rd, gold prices fell about 16.5% while Bitcoin rose roughly 7.6%. In this Trump-risk phase, Bitcoin has demonstrated resilience beyond volatility and appears to outperform gold.
Is Bitcoin unable to secure gold’s safe-haven status, or has it already begun to fulfill that role? Experts have urged investors to watch this market closely, noting that related equities have surged more than 100% in a month.
Leave a Reply