On the global asset allocation map, the competition between gold and Bitcoin is becoming increasingly fierce. One is a long-standing symbol of wealth, and the other is an emerging asset in the digital age. Both claim to hedge systemic risks, but their paths are entirely different.

The story of gold is quite clear—central bank vaults, geopolitical games, stable real interest rates. During trade frictions and dollar debt crises, it acts like a firewall. This historical depth and steady performance make conservative allocators feel secure. Dalio and others know well that gold often holds its ground in extreme market conditions.

Bitcoin's logic, however, is completely different. It has no vaults, no central bank backing, yet claims to possess "silicon-based scarcity"—supply is locked through algorithms and cryptography. Interestingly, recently, Bitcoin's correlation with Nasdaq has been weakening, and it is increasingly following the rhythm of global liquidity. This means it is gradually evolving from a speculative asset into a liquidity hedge tool, with supply rigidity even surpassing gold. Under leverage, Bitcoin can more sharply predict market sentiment shifts.

However, Bitcoin's volatility is a double-edged sword. Its sharp fluctuations reflect the uncertainty of emerging assets and are less stable than gold during extreme tail events. Conservative investors often shy away from this risk.

Essentially, this is not a replacement but a complementarity. Gold safeguards the consensus of past value, while Bitcoin explores the trust foundation of the future. True asset allocation wisdom may lie in having the certainty of gold's defense and some Bitcoin to hedge extreme tail risks. Both serve their roles and have their gains.