A well-known investor recently made a prediction: post-pandemic government debt, under the squeeze of high interest rates, is becoming an increasingly heavy burden, and the speed of large-scale capital withdrawal may be faster than everyone expects.

This judgment points to a vicious cycle—the US debt problem has only two solutions. One is to gradually digest it through a combination of rate cuts and inflation; the other is to force a default under unbearable pressure. But regardless of which path is taken, the outcome is bullish for gold. Rate cuts combined with inflation will directly push up gold prices, and if a crisis erupts, gold will be the first choice for traditional safe-haven assets. This also explains why recent gold and platinum markets have been so volatile—the market is voting with its feet.

However, there is an interesting contradiction here. The same voice says the US dollar is relatively safe, but then discusses the risks of a financial crisis. If a crisis really occurs, can the safety of the dollar be guaranteed? Conversely, under such expectations, non-sovereign assets like Bitcoin might actually become a more reliable hedge.

This debate essentially touches on a core issue: in an environment of policy dilemmas, are traditional safe-haven assets more reliable, or can emerging asset allocations provide better protection?