Silver's Secret? Recently, a very interesting and confusing phenomenon has emerged in the market: gold and silver continue to rise, while Bitcoin is pulling back. Many people have begun to question whether the long-term logic has changed, and some even ask: Is the era of Bitcoin coming to an end? Or have precious metals taken over everything again? My view hasn't changed; it is completely consistent with my previous judgments. Over a sufficiently long time horizon, the assets that can continuously hit new highs will still be gold and Bitcoin. Short-term divergence is not the end of the trend; it is merely a process of deliberately guiding capital flows. Why is silver being "brought to the forefront" at this stage? From historical experience, silver has never been an independent main character. It almost always appears after the launch of a "golden supercycle" and, at certain stages, plays the roles of "buffer" and "diversion." The reason is not complicated. When gold prices rise rapidly, it indicates that global concerns about sovereign currencies and credit systems are being released in a concentrated manner. But the problem is that the party holding settlement rights and financial order does not want capital to excessively and uncontrollably flow into the ultimate anchor. Therefore, silver becomes a natural alternative: it is also a precious metal, with a shared historical consensus, but its status, symbolism, and ultimate attributes are always weaker than gold. It can absorb some safe-haven and speculative funds without truly shaking the "final position" of gold in the system. In other words, silver is more like a "pressure relief valve" during gold's upward process. So why is Bitcoin falling instead? If gold is seen as a trust anchor in the real world, then Bitcoin is its digital counterpart. The problem with Bitcoin has never been about long-term logic; rather, it is: it is younger, more volatile, and its price discovery relies more on marginal capital sentiment. When market risk appetite declines and liquidity tightens periodically, Bitcoin often comes under pressure first, rather than benefiting first. But this does not mean its role is weakened. On the contrary, this kind of pullback often occurs in the same context: people are rethinking what constitutes "value that does not rely on others' promises." Gold leads the way, and Bitcoin temporarily lags behind, which is not contradictory. They are simply at different points in the same migration path. From a long-term perspective, only two types of "trust assets" remain. If we zoom out, a clearer outline emerges: gold is the consensus accumulated over time in the material world, while Bitcoin is trust built through computing power and algorithms in the digital world. They share a common point: neither depends on a specific country, institution, or centralized promise. Silver, other assets, and even many intermediate financial instruments may rise, rotate, and be pursued along the way, but they are more like pathways. The current divergence essentially reflects: from national credit → consensus credit; from a single currency narrative → coexistence of multiple anchors; from short-term liquidity games → long-term trust rebuilding. Silver plays the role of "diversion," while gold and Bitcoin undertake the role of "anchoring the future." When this migration is truly complete, looking back at today's price fluctuations may only be a chapter of historical noise. $XAU $XAG $BTC