Gold and Bitcoin have always been the focal point of asset allocators' debates. Both are viewed as safe-haven assets, but their essence is entirely different.

Traditionally, gold relies on historical credibility. Reserves in central bank vaults, geopolitical chips, and lines of defense during trade frictions—gold's value is built on a dual foundation of national trust and real-world demand. Its volatility is relatively moderate, and allocators regard it as a ballast to hedge against dollar depreciation and debt crises. This stability is indeed attractive, and it’s no wonder that investment masters like Ray Dalio advocate for it.

Bitcoin, on the other hand, follows a completely different logic. It has no physical backing but achieves supply rigidity through code—even more strictly than gold. More importantly, it inherently possesses censorship resistance, with cross-border transfer costs approaching zero. These features make it uniquely attractive during periods of global liquidity tightness. In recent years, Bitcoin's correlation with the Nasdaq has decreased, instead aligning more with global capital flows, indicating that its asset properties are evolving—from a speculative tool to a hedge against extreme risks.

However, currently, gold's volatility is far lower than that of Bitcoin. Bitcoin's high volatility poses a challenge for conservative allocators; especially during extreme black swan events, gold remains as reliable as a shield, while Bitcoin is more like a gamble.

But this does not mean it’s an either/or choice. In the long term, gold guards yesterday’s value, while Bitcoin explores the possibilities of tomorrow. Both represent different eras’ understanding of "trust"—one based on physical attributes and national credit, the other on mathematical certainty and network consensus. In asset allocation, they may ultimately form a complementary rather than a substitutive relationship.