For centuries, gold has played the role of ultimate insurance. In 2025, it is once again proving itself: +33 to +37% this year, a record at $3,630/oz, and more than 2,900 tonnes in ETFs. Institutional investors continue to flock to it whenever markets falter.

Bitcoin, on the other hand, is moving differently: around +22% this year, but with a major break – its correlation with gold has turned negative. According to ValueTheMarkets, the 30-day correlation “went into negative territory, at -0.53, while the one-year correlation remains moderately positive (0.65).” In other words, they no longer move together. While gold remains linked to stock market crises, BTC is starting to behave as a separate asset, influenced by its own dynamics (spot ETFs, bond flows, adoption).

Goldman Sachs and the idea of 185k $

Goldman imagines a scenario where gold would rise to $5,000 if the Fed lost credibility. Some immediately extrapolate: “if gold rises, BTC could follow and aim for 185k.”

But is this really relevant? 🤔

In my view, Bitcoin no longer needs to be systematically compared to gold. Its strength lies in charting its own path, driven by its fundamentals: fixed supply, institutional adoption, and a growing role in modern portfolios. Moreover, unlike gold, BTC is not as strongly regarded as a safe-haven asset by institutional investors, but rather they often jump into it for pure speculation. Apart from exchanges, of course, since most of them hold BTC primarily as proof of reserves. For example, I believe I read Bitget’s proof of reserves report in August: it held up to 28,022.72 BTC, with reserves at 365% compared to users’ deposits.

Gold remains solid to protect the present, but BTC is already ready for the future. Wanting to project its price only in relation to gold is to miss what it has become: an autonomous asset, with its own logic. But I may be wrong in my perspective. I just wanted to share your opinion.

Do you still believe gold remains the reference ahead of BTC?