Gold and silver prices have repeatedly hit new highs, so why has Bitcoin fallen instead of rising?

The precious metals market experienced a boom in 2025. Silver broke through the $50 range in late November and then rose parabolically, reaching a record high of $72 per ounce on December 24, with an annual increase of 143%. Gold reached $4,524.30 per ounce on the same day, with an annual increase of 70%.

In stark contrast, Bitcoin was trading at $87,498 at the time of writing, down 8% year-to-date and 30% from its October peak of $126,000.

This leaves those who believe in Bitcoin's "digital gold" narrative to ponder: the macro trends driving up precious metal prices do not seem to be transmitting to the crypto market.

The core drivers of the rise in precious metals prices are a weaker dollar, expectations of a Fed rate cut in 2026, and rising geopolitical risks – a favorable environment that Bitcoin supporters have long anticipated.

However, when allocating safe-haven assets, the market prefers tangible hedging tools with a century-long reputation, such as gold and silver. Central banks around the world increased their gold reserves throughout the year, and retail funds also shifted to physical precious metals after the decline in Bitcoin at the beginning of the year.

Multiple studies in 2025 confirmed that gold has been more stable in its safe-haven performance during various macroeconomic shocks, while Bitcoin is more often a high-beta risk asset, positively correlated with stocks, and has not led the way in this round of trading.

Structural demand disparities have further widened the gap between the two. The rise in silver prices stems not only from safe-haven demand but also from record demand in industrial sectors such as photovoltaics and electronics. The scarcity of substitutes in the supply chain exacerbates supply tensions, creating dual support from both macroeconomic and industrial factors.

Bitcoin lacks industrial applications, with demand concentrated in financial speculation and on-chain settlements, lacking a buffer of physical demand. This asymmetry means that even if interest rate cuts stall and risk appetite cools, silver still has industrial demand to support it, while Bitcoin can only rely on ETF funds to absorb selling pressure, and with current negative liquidity, its support has weakened.

The surge in silver prices is a macroeconomic barometer rather than a trading signal. It confirms the market's pricing in low real interest rates and a weak dollar, but it also highlights that Bitcoin has not yet been integrated into the hard asset trading system.

For Bitcoin to reverse its downward trend, it needs increased regulatory clarity to drive institutional reallocation, a recovery in retail investor sentiment, or its censorship resistance and programmability to highlight its value under macroeconomic shocks.

It is worth noting that silver is currently relatively crowded, and a hawkish shift by the Federal Reserve could trigger asset volatility, which would indirectly impact Bitcoin.

The divergence in 2025 proves that "hard assets" cannot yet be linked to Bitcoin. Silver has both industrial demand and institutional credibility, gold has institutional credibility and narrative momentum, while Bitcoin is still vying for institutional recognition and will never possess industrial attributes.

This does not negate the value of Bitcoin; it simply means that its outperformance requires additional conditions to be met. Once those conditions are met, its potential for appreciation could still surpass that of precious metals.

Before we get to that, we need to know that macroeconomic positive factors have not yet driven the crypto market, and Bitcoin still has a long way to go before it becomes a hard asset.