Computational Technology and Market Dynamics: Why Bitcoin Remains Under Pressure Amid Safe Asset Rally

When global investors shift their focus to hedging instruments, Bitcoin faces layered pressures that go far beyond mere market sentiment. Recent debates about the role of quantum computing technology in triggering buy-sell activity reflect the tension between on-chain fundamental analysis and long-term speculation. Understanding this dynamic helps explain why Bitcoin, although still dominant, is now lagging behind gold and silver, which are experiencing historic momentum.

Asset Divergence: Bitcoin Weakens While Commodities and Equities Grow

A clear divergence pattern has been measurable since the November 2024 election. While silver soared by +205% and gold jumped +83%, Bitcoin actually declined by -2.6%. In comparison, Nasdaq grew by +24% and the S&P 500 by +17.6%, illustrating a unique situation: US stocks are prospering amid economic uncertainty, while Bitcoin remains volatile.

Gold reached an all-time high near $4,930 per ounce, while silver continues climbing toward $96. This phenomenon indicates that institutional investors and central banks are increasingly prioritizing capital preservation over speculative growth expectations. Bitcoin, previously promoted as “digital gold,” is behaving more like a high-beta risk asset—responsive to micro pressures rather than serving as a hedge against macroeconomic uncertainty.

Gold Outlook: Long-Term Targets Show Substantial Upside Potential

Analyst from Capriole Investments, Charles Edwards, presents an ambitious bullish projection: gold could reach $12,000 to $23,000 per ounce within the next three to eight years. Edwards’ argument is built on three pillars:

First, global central bank gold accumulation has hit record highs, especially from China, which has increased its reserves nearly tenfold over the past two years. This phenomenon is not retail speculation but strategic allocation for diversifying national reserve assets.

Second, the expansion of the global fiat money supply is running at over 10% per year—creating structural devaluation pressures that make precious metals a natural hedge.

Third, confidence in the global sovereign bond markets continues to decline, prompting reallocations from government debt instruments into traditional real assets. The monthly RSI index for gold has reached its most expensive level since the 1970s, but Edwards emphasizes that the fundamental drivers—rather than speculative bubbles—are fueling this rally.

Quantum Computing Debate: Actual Cause or Just Distraction?

The ongoing weakness in Bitcoin’s price has reignited discussions about quantum computing technology as an existential threat. Nic Carter of Castle Island Ventures revived this topic last week with provocative arguments: Bitcoin’s “mysterious” weakness actually reflects market awareness of quantum risks.

“Bitcoin’s poor performance is caused by quantum. The market is speaking—developers are not listening,” Carter said, prompting immediate reactions from the on-chain community.

However, this explanation faces strong criticism from experienced analysts and investors who offer alternative interpretations based on empirical on-chain data.

Technical Solutions Are Already in Place: Why Quantum Computing Is Not the Main Trigger

Blockchain researchers point out that the real dynamics are more prosaic: Bitcoin is experiencing massive distribution pressure from long-term HODLers who are taking profits as the price approaches the psychological barrier of $100,000. The released supply is more than enough to absorb new demand from ETFs and institutional investors, dampening bullish momentum.

“The real explanation is the large supply opening when we hit the psychological level for whales—$100,000,” said investor and author Vijay Boyapati. On-chain analyst Checkmatey added: this distribution pattern is consistent with historical cycles—not an indication of a paradigm shift.

Regarding the threat of quantum computing technology, most Bitcoin developers see it as a long-term risk that can be managed through gradual upgrades, not a short-term price driver.

Realistic Timeline: Why Quantum Is Not a Short-Term Market Factor

Adam Back, co-founder of Blockstream, repeatedly emphasizes that the worst-case scenario for quantum computing—such as implementing Shor’s algorithm that could theoretically break elliptic curve cryptography—is still decades away from practical reality.

Proposals like Bitcoin BIP-360 outline pathways for migrating to quantum-resistant address formats. Such upgrades would take years, even decades, to fully deploy—making quantum risk an implausible explanation for intramonth or yearly price pressures.

Voices from traditional finance, like Christopher Wood of Jefferies, who recently removed Bitcoin from their model portfolio, do cite quantum concerns as a long-term consideration. However, industry analysts confirm: even if quantum computing becomes a credible threat, Bitcoin’s adaptation timeline is measured in decades, not quarters.

Macro Reality: The True Factors Moving the Market

For now, macro factors continue to dominate Bitcoin’s behavior:

• Rising global bond yields reduce investor risk appetite for speculative assets
• Trade and geopolitical tensions strengthen flight-to-safety into traditional assets
• Rotation into gold driven by central bank accumulation and erosion of sovereign debt confidence
• Capital preservation preferences outweigh risk-taking and speculation

Bitcoin is currently in a consolidation zone with resistance clustered around $91,000–$93,500, and support gathering between $85,000–$88,000. Recent data shows BTC reacting at $72.76K with a 24-hour decline of -5.21%, reflecting ongoing selling pressure.

To regain bullish momentum, Bitcoin needs to break back above resistance zones. Failure to do so in the coming weeks will reinforce the perception that crypto is behaving more like a high-beta risk asset than a safe haven in the current macro environment.

Until monetary or geopolitical clarity improves significantly, traders are likely to remain reactive to technical levels and global data, rather than distracted by existential worries like quantum computing. Conversely, gold’s momentum is expected to remain protected by structural demand from central banks and institutional reallocations—making precious metals the primary beneficiaries of macro capital flow shifts.