Gold advances towards $23,000 an ounce as Bitcoin falls below 83K and quantum risks come back into focus

As global markets reorient capital toward traditional safe-haven assets, Bitcoin faces mounting pressure, retreating to $83.09K, signaling a strong shift in sentiment. Precious metals, especially gold, have become the focal point for investors concerned about geopolitical instability and sovereign debt, simultaneously reigniting debates about quantum threats and the long-term relevance of cryptocurrencies.

Accelerated Decoupling: From Safe Haven to High Volatility

The divergence between Bitcoin and traditional assets has become dramatic since Donald Trump’s election in November 2024. While precious metals experienced one of the strongest rallies in recent history, Bitcoin lost significant ground:

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

Gold reached historic levels near $4,930 per ounce, while silver approached $96, solidifying their status as preferred assets amid uncertainty. Bitcoin, on the other hand, remains about 30% below its October 2025 highs, reinforcing the perception that crypto assets function more as high-beta instruments than as stores of value in the current market regime.

Precious Metals in Offense: Gold Forecast to $23,000 per Ounce

Investors’ appetite for precious metals has generated ambitious projections. Charles Edwards, founder of Capriole Investments, recently published a long-term forecast suggesting gold could reach between $12,000 and $23,000 per ounce over the next three to eight years. This estimate is based on several pillars:

• Record gold accumulation by central banks worldwide
• Accelerated expansion of fiat money supply exceeding 10% annually
• Rapid increase in China’s gold reserves over just two years
• Ongoing erosion of confidence in sovereign debt markets

“If current cycles mirror historical expansions of assets in the 20th century, gold’s potential to rise per ounce is far from exhausted,” Edwards concluded. Although the monthly RSI indicator for gold has hit overbought levels comparable to the 1970s, analysts argue that structural demand—rather than speculation—supports this growth.

Quantum Rebound: An Explanation for Weakness?

Bitcoin’s persistent stagnation revives a classic debate: to what extent do quantum threats influence market behavior? Nic Carter, partner at Castle Island Ventures, revisited the discussion this week with a provocative statement: Bitcoin’s underperformance reflects a growing awareness of quantum computing risks. “The market observes and talks— but developers seem not to listen,” Carter noted.

These comments prompted quick responses from the analytical community and long-term investors, reigniting a debate that periodically resurfaces with each consolidation cycle.

Market Structure Explains Actual Price Dynamics

On-chain researchers disagree that quantum fears are the main driver of consolidation. Analyst Checkonchain (@Checkmatey) argued that Bitcoin’s behavior reflects historical cycles driven by supply dynamics, not speculative technological threats. “Gold is being researched because sovereigns are buying it instead of government bonds,” he explained. “Bitcoin experienced massive sell-offs from HODLers in 2025—enough to undermine several previous bull cycles.”

Vijay Boyapati, a well-known Bitcoin investor and author, offered a more digestible perspective: “The real cause is unlocking a huge supply when reaching a specific psychological level—$100,000.” On-chain data confirms this theory: as Bitcoin approached six figures, long-term holders increased distributions, flooding the market with supply that absorbed new ETF demand and institutional capital, limiting upward momentum.

Quantum Threat: A Real Risk, But the Horizon Remains Distant

Despite renewed media attention, Bitcoin developers generally see quantum computing more as a long-term challenge than an immediate market factor. Quantum computers capable of running algorithms like Shor’s—potentially compromising elliptic curve cryptography—are still far from practical implementation.

Adam Back, co-founder of Blockstream, has consistently reiterated that even adverse scenarios would not cause immediate or network-level losses. The BIP-360 proposal has already charted a path for migration to quantum-resistant addresses, allowing gradual adaptations years before a credible threat materializes. “These transitions would take years, not quarters,” developers emphasized.

Traditional Finance Raises Questions, but Timeline Remains Long

Some voices in corporate finance have raised concerns. Christopher Wood, strategist at Jefferies, removed Bitcoin from a model portfolio earlier this month, citing long-term quantum risks. However, fundamental analysis indicates that the challenge is not whether Bitcoin can adapt— but how long an upgrade would take, if ever necessary. The horizon is measured in decades, not years.

Macroeconomics Dominates, Bitcoin Remains at the Mercy of Broader Factors

Beyond theories and speculation, market participants recognize that Bitcoin operates in a macro-driven environment: rising global bond yields, unresolved trade tensions, massive sovereign rotation into precious metals, and a global preference for capital preservation over speculative growth.

From this perspective, traders’ focus remains on critical technical levels rather than existential long-term risks. Bitcoin needs to recover the $91,000–$93,500 zone to regain upward momentum; failure to do so would leave support at $85,000–$88,000. Until macroeconomic clarity improves, Bitcoin is likely to remain reactive.

Meanwhile, gold continues to benefit from global capital flows—a structural shift that could support prices per ounce in the medium and long term, according to Cointelegraph analysis.

#BTC #ETF