Bitcoin Trading Under $84K While Gold Rallies: Understanding the Macro Shift Beyond Quantum Computing Concerns

Bitcoin has faced considerable headwinds over recent weeks, trading significantly below the $90,000 level that many analysts once viewed as a psychological anchor. As of late January 2026, the world’s largest cryptocurrency sits at $83.77K — roughly 34% below its all-time high of $126.08K. This persistent weakness has triggered renewed debate over whether Bitcoin’s underperformance reflects genuine technological risks like quantum computing, or whether more conventional market forces are at play. Meanwhile, traditional safe-haven assets continue to dominate global capital flows, with gold and silver extending their historic rally.

The Divergence: Why Gold Surges While Bitcoin Consolidates

The contrast between Bitcoin’s performance and the rally in precious metals tells a compelling story about where institutional capital is currently seeking refuge. Since November 2024, when Donald Trump’s election victory initially sparked risk appetite, the divergence has widened dramatically:

• Bitcoin: Down 2.6% from post-election levels
• Gold: Up 83%, climbing to near $4,930 per ounce
• Silver: Up 205%, pushing toward $96 per ounce
• Nasdaq: Up 24%
• S&P 500: Up 17.6%

The pattern is revealing: while equities and select risk assets have advanced, Bitcoin has lagged. Investors appear to be rotating from speculative crypto holdings into time-tested safe-haven instruments. Gold’s dominance reflects a combination of geopolitical tensions, concerns over sovereign debt sustainability, and central bank accumulation programs that continue at record pace. Bitcoin, by contrast, is being treated more as a high-beta risk asset than as digital gold—a distinction that has profound implications for how traders are positioning themselves in the current macro environment.

Gold’s Multi-Year Upside: Forecasters See Path to $23,000

As precious metals dominate inflows, bullish long-term forecasts for gold have intensified considerably. Charles Edwards, founder of Capriole Investments, recently projected that gold could reach $12,000 to $23,000 per ounce over the next three to eight years. His thesis rests on several structural factors:

• Record-breaking central bank gold accumulation
• Fiat money supply expansion exceeding 10% annually
• China’s near-tenfold increase in gold reserves over just two years
• Declining confidence in sovereign debt markets

“If this cycle mirrors the historic asset expansions we witnessed in the 20th century, gold’s upside is far from finished,” Edwards noted. While gold’s monthly RSI indicator has reached overbought extremes not seen since the 1970s, analysts argue that structural demand—rather than speculative froth—is driving the sustained rally. This distinction matters: sustainable moves are typically anchored to fundamental flows rather than sentiment-driven momentum.

Quantum Computing Fears Resurface—But Is It Really the Issue?

Bitcoin’s continued consolidation has reignited a long-running debate around quantum computing risks. This week, Nic Carter of Castle Island Ventures sparked discussion by suggesting that Bitcoin’s “mysterious” weakness reflects growing market awareness of quantum threats to cryptographic security. “Bitcoin’s underperformance is due to quantum,” Carter stated. “The market is speaking — the developers aren’t listening.”

His comments drew immediate pushback from on-chain analysts and long-term Bitcoin observers, however. Most argue that attributing the weakness to quantum fears fundamentally misreads the current market dynamics and overlooks more tangible forces at work.

What the Data Actually Shows: Supply, Whales, and Technical Resistance

On-chain researchers point to more conventional explanations for Bitcoin’s price action. The primary culprit appears to be a massive release of supply by long-term holders as Bitcoin approached the psychological $100,000 level—a dynamic that has played out in previous cycles.

Analyst @Checkmatey noted: “Gold has a bid because sovereigns are buying it instead of treasuries. Bitcoin saw heavy HODLer sell-side in 2025—enough to kill prior bull markets multiple times over.” Bitcoin investor Vijay Boyapati echoed this view, highlighting a straightforward trigger: “The real explanation is the unlocking of enormous supply once we hit a psychological level for whales—$100,000.”

According to blockchain network metrics, long-term holders significantly increased distribution as Bitcoin approached six figures. This supply release absorbed the demand from new ETF products and institutional buyers, effectively capping upside momentum. In this interpretation, Bitcoin’s weakness is not a harbinger of systemic risk—it’s profit-taking on a grand scale.

The Quantum Argument: Theoretical Risk, Distant Timeline

Despite the renewed attention, most Bitcoin developers continue to view quantum computing as a long-term and manageable concern, not a near-term market driver. Quantum computers capable of running algorithms like Shor’s algorithm—which could theoretically break elliptic curve cryptography—remain far from practical deployment.

Blockstream co-founder Adam Back has repeatedly emphasized that even worst-case quantum scenarios would not result in immediate network-wide losses. Bitcoin Improvement Proposal BIP-360 already outlines a migration path toward quantum-resistant address formats, allowing for gradual upgrades well before any credible threat emerges. Developers stress that such transitions would unfold over many years, not market cycles—making quantum risk an unlikely explanation for short-term price weakness.

Even traditional finance voices have flagged quantum computing as a long-term consideration. Jefferies strategist Christopher Wood recently removed Bitcoin from a model portfolio, citing long-term quantum risk among his concerns. However, analysts emphasize the key distinction: the challenge isn’t whether Bitcoin can adapt, but how long such an upgrade would take if ever required. That timeline is measured in decades, not quarters or years.

The Real Driver: Macro Sensitivity and Capital Preservation

For now, Bitcoin remains trapped in a macro-driven environment dominated by rising global bond yields, trade tensions, geopolitical uncertainty, and a broad shift toward capital preservation over speculative growth. Traders are focused on key technical levels: Bitcoin needs to reclaim the $91,000–$93,500 resistance zone to restore upside momentum. Failure to do so leaves downside support clustered between $85,000 and $88,000.

Until monetary clarity or geopolitical de-escalation emerges, Bitcoin is likely to remain reactive rather than directional. By contrast, gold continues to benefit from a historic rotation of global capital flows toward traditional safe-haven assets—a structural shift that could persist for years.