Recently, I observed an interesting phenomenon—two traditional safe-haven assets, gold and silver, suddenly surged. Gold soared to $4,700 per ounce, and silver approached $94, both hitting record highs. What does this reflect? To put it simply, the market is hedging. With increasing monetary uncertainty and rising political risks, as we approach the end of the cycle, smart money is betting on these assets.

In contrast, Bitcoin's performance appears somewhat awkward. After experiencing a recent flash crash, it has stabilized around $92,000, still a bit away from the psychological barrier of $100,000. Why do these risk assets diverge so much in their trends? The underlying logic is worth pondering.

The issue is that Bitcoin's role is changing. It used to be an independent entity within the crypto space, but now it is increasingly constrained by global macro factors—liquidity conditions, political incentives, and capital rotation among different assets. This is no small matter, meaning that understanding Bitcoin solely from a crypto perspective is no longer sufficient.

Especially the once very effective "four-year halving cycle." Supply shocks, speculative leverage, and market consensus—these classic factors—are now losing their explanatory power. Bitcoin is entering a more complex macro game, and its future may need to be viewed from a broader perspective.