Bitcoin’s much-hyped reputation as “digital gold” took a brutal beating when Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities triggered a 2.8% nosedive from $106,042 to $103,053 in just 90 minutes. Meanwhile, actual gold climbed 1.44% and oil rocketed 11% as investors sprinted toward proven safe havens. The crypto crash liquidated $427 million in long positions, proving that when geopolitical chaos hits, Bitcoin still behaves more like a volatile tech stock than reliable digital refuge most advocates claim it represents.
Bitcoin’s price dropped a brutal 2.8% within 90 minutes, falling from $106,042 to $103,053 as news of the strikes broke. The speed was impressive, in all the wrong ways.
Sure, it recovered to $104,370 afterward, but the damage to Bitcoin’s tough-guy reputation was already done. This wasn’t exactly the behavior investors expect from a safe-haven asset.
While Bitcoin was having its meltdown, gold prices rose 1.44% and oil surged 11%. Classic safe-haven moves. Bitcoin? Not so much.
Gold and oil played their traditional safe-haven roles perfectly while Bitcoin crumbled like a house of cards.
The carnage extended beyond just price action. Approximately $427.84 million in long positions got liquidated over 24 hours.
Unlike traditional banking transfers that face delays, Bitcoin’s peer-to-peer transactions typically complete within minutes, making the price swing even more dramatic.
Traders who were feeling bullish about Bitcoin’s recent performance suddenly found themselves staring at margin calls. The CoinDesk 20 index, representing major cryptocurrencies, dropped over 6%. Ouch.
What makes this particularly stinging is timing. Bitcoin had hit $110,265 earlier in the week and reached an all-time high of $111,940 on May 22.
The drop brought it uncomfortably close to that psychologically important $100,000 level that everyone keeps talking about.
The risk-off mood triggered by the conflict highlighted Bitcoin’s ongoing identity crisis. Is it digital gold or just another volatile tech stock?
Based on this performance, investors seem to think it’s the latter. When push comes to shove, they’re still running to traditional safe havens.
This isn’t Bitcoin’s first rodeo with geopolitical drama. Previous events have shown similar patterns: initial decline, followed by recovery.
But each time raises the same question about Bitcoin’s role in crisis situations.
The cryptocurrency’s sensitivity to geopolitical shocks underscores its evolving place in the financial ecosystem. Israel’s Operation Rising Lion targeted Iranian nuclear facilities and missile production plants, escalating an already volatile regional situation.
Despite growing adoption and institutional interest, Bitcoin clearly lacks the stability that defines traditional safe-haven assets. The absence of crypto leaders speaking out during the crisis only added to market uncertainty.
Market volatility remains its calling card, whether bulls like it or not.
