Bitcoin Pressed to $71.57K Amid Gold Dominance: Why the Cryptography Risk Elipsis Is Not the Real Cause

Bitcoin is experiencing renewed significant pressure, moving away from the psychological level of $100,000 and currently trading around $71.57K with a 5.88% decline in the past 24 hours. While the world’s largest digital asset struggles to maintain momentum, massive global investors are shifting to traditional hedges—gold reaching an all-time high near $4,930 per ounce and silver jumping toward $96. This dramatic capital shift has reignited the longstanding debate over cryptography and quantum computing risks, although experts argue that the real causes are much more fundamental and macroeconomic in nature.

Notable Divergence: Why Traditional Safe Assets Are Leaving Bitcoin Behind

As Wall Street enters Friday trading, Bitcoin remains trapped in a narrow consolidation zone after failing to break back above the resistance area of $90,000–$93,500. The performance gap between Bitcoin and traditional instruments has widened into a significant chasm.

Since Donald Trump’s election victory in November 2024, performance data shows a clear divergence:

Bitcoin: −2.6% | Silver: +205% | Gold: +83% | Nasdaq: +24% | S&P 500: +17.6%

This reality reflects fundamental changes in investor behavior. Gold hits new highs while consolidating gains, whereas Bitcoin remains 30% below its October 2025 all-time high. This divergence reinforces the narrative that cryptocurrencies are currently functioning more as high-risk beta assets rather than safe havens in a volatile macro environment. The flow of capital into precious metals is accelerated by geopolitical tensions, rising sovereign debt concerns, and central bank buying demand worldwide.

Gold Projection Reaching $23,000: Historic Monetary Expansion Scenario

As demand for safe assets continues to rise, long-term bullish projections for gold are gaining more attention. Charles Edwards, founder of Capriole Investments, presents an ambitious yet data-supported scenario: gold could reach $12,000 to $23,000 per ounce over a three to eight-year period.

Edwards’ thesis is built on a solid foundation:

• Central Bank Gold Accumulation: Global financial institutions are increasing gold reserves at unprecedented rates
• Accelerating Fiat Expansion: Money supply growth has exceeded 10% annually, creating currency devaluation
• Aggressive Chinese Accumulation: Over the past two years, China has increased its gold reserves nearly tenfold
• Erosion of Bond Market Confidence: Investors systematically reduce trust in traditional sovereign debt instruments

Edwards explains: “If this cycle reflects the historic 20th-century asset expansion, the potential for gold’s rise is far from over.” The monthly Relative Strength Index (RSI) for gold has reached levels not seen since the 1970s, although analysts maintain that structural demand—rather than speculation—drives the rally.

Is the Cryptography Ellipsis Threat Triggering Bitcoin Sell-Off? Analysts Dispute

The weakening of Bitcoin has reopened longstanding questions about quantum computing risks and cryptography ellipsis vulnerabilities. Nic Carter, partner at Castle Island Ventures, sparked debate this week with a controversial argument: Bitcoin’s “mysterious” weakness reflects growing market awareness of quantum threats.

“Bitcoin’s poor performance is caused by quantum,” Carter said. “The market is speaking — developers are not listening.”

This statement quickly drew strong responses from on-chain analysis communities and institutional investors. Most reject the quantum thesis as a short-term downward catalyst.

Actual Explanation: Supply Dynamics, Not Speculative Technology Risks

On-chain analysts argue that linking Bitcoin’s consolidation to quantum fears is a fundamental misunderstanding of current market mechanics. @Checkmatey, a leading on-chain researcher, highlights a clear difference between gold and Bitcoin:

“Gold is being bought because countries are purchasing it instead of sovereign bonds. Bitcoin experienced heavy HODLer-side selling in 2025 — enough to kill previous bullish rallies multiple times.”

Bitcoin investor and author Vijay Boyapati adds a more technical perspective: “The real explanation is the large supply release once we hit the psychological level for whales — $100,000.” On-chain data confirms that long-term holders significantly increased distribution as Bitcoin approached six figures, releasing supply that absorbed demand from spot ETFs and new institutional players while limiting upward momentum. This is classic market mechanics proven over time, not an existential ellipsis threat.

Quantum Computing and Ellipsis: Long-Term Threats Manageable

Despite renewed attention, most Bitcoin developers see quantum computing as a long-term risk that can be managed, not a short-term market trigger. Quantum machines capable of running Shor’s algorithm—which could theoretically disrupt elliptic curve cryptography—are still far from practical deployment.

Adam Back, co-founder of Blockstream, repeatedly emphasizes that even worst-case scenarios would not cause immediate losses across the network. Bitcoin’s blockchain has enough time to adapt before quantum threats become credible.

Proposals like BIP-360 outline a migration framework toward quantum-resistant address formats, allowing gradual upgrades over years before a real ellipsis threat emerges. Such transitions are measured in decades, not market cycles—making quantum risk an unreasonable explanation for short-term price declines.

Traditional Finance Perspective: Quantum as a Distant Consideration

Some voices in traditional finance still point to quantum computing as a future consideration. Earlier this month, Christopher Wood of Jefferies removed Bitcoin from his model portfolio, citing long-term ellipsis risks among his concerns.

However, industry analysts note that the main challenge is not whether Bitcoin can adapt, but how long it will take. The timeline is measured in decades, giving the developer community plenty of time to respond.

Macro Factors Dominate: Capital Seeks Certainty

For now, market participants say Bitcoin remains constrained by a macro-driven environment:

• Rising Global Bond Yields: Increasing opportunity costs for risk assets
• Trade Tensions and Geopolitical Uncertainty: Driving systemic risk aversion
• Sovereign Capital Rotation into Gold: Central banks and institutional investors systematically shifting allocations
• Capital Preservation Priority: Speculative growth stacking behind safety in this regime

Traders continue to focus on key technical levels rather than existential long-term risks. Bitcoin needs to retake the $91,000–$93,500 zone to regain bullish momentum. Failure to do so leaves support levels between $85,000 and $88,000 vulnerable. Until monetary or geopolitical clarity improves, Bitcoin is likely to react more to global market flows than to lead its own trend—while gold continues to capitalize on the historic shift in global capital flows.