Gold 2.0 or just a fallacy? Crypto can't chip away at gold's safe-haven shield: researcher
Advertisement
John Reade, the senior market strategist and head of research at the association, said that long-term demand for gold remains well supported amid mounting concerns over US dollar assets, persistent trade and geopolitical tensions, and the economic fallout of tariffs.
'Bitcoin and other digital assets have been marketed as an improved version of gold … as 'gold 2.0' or 'digital gold',' Reade told the Post. 'That's a fallacy, in my opinion.'
He pointed out that cryptocurrencies tend to move in tandem with equities – unlike gold, which typically acts as a hedge during market volatility – and stressed that these digital assets do not represent 'any risks or comparison' to gold.
'I'm not concerned about digital assets being a threat to gold,' he added on Thursday. 'I wish the proponents of digital assets would stop marketing them as 'gold 2.0', when they very clearly have different characteristics.'
Advertisement
His comments came as market interest in stablecoins and other digital currencies continues to grow, alongside a fresh rally in gold prices amid heightened Middle East tensions and a weakening US dollar.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South China Morning Post
a day ago
- South China Morning Post
Hard to switch: why US farmers are embracing Chinese drones despite concerns
When David Bruntz, vice-president of the US Meat Export Federation, recently began looking for drones to monitor the cattle on his Nebraska ranch, he found that only one brand offered a 'reasonably priced' solution: the Chinese tech giant DJI. The Shenzhen-based company already dominates the US drone market, and its products are now rapidly being adopted across the agricultural sector as the firm rolls out specialised solutions for sowing fields, spraying crops and tracking livestock. 'It's moving rather fast,' Bruntz said. Like many farmers in the state, Bruntz is not thrilled to be relying on Chinese technology. He worries about the potential for supply chain disruptions of the kind that occurred during the Covid-19 pandemic, when 'we couldn't get enough chips to put in our vehicles and things like that'. But for now, he feels he has little other choice. The Chinese systems are not only far cheaper than American-made alternatives on the market; they often also have more advanced capabilities. 'They definitely have the advantage in a lot of technical areas,' he said. 'The remedy would be to develop our own products in the US.'
South China Morning Post
a day ago
- South China Morning Post
Trump's ‘pay-to-play' trade policy sets a dangerous precedent
Any lingering doubts about the extent to which US President Donald Trump has rewritten the rules of global trade should have been laid to rest with reports that chip giants Nvidia and AMD have agreed to pay the US government 15 per cent of the revenue from chip sales in China. The payments are a quid pro quo for approval of the export licences needed to sell semiconductors critical to China's artificial intelligence (AI) ambitions. The previously stalled licences were approved by the Commerce Department on August 8. As the US-China geostrategic rivalry has intensified in recent years, both Democratic and Republican administrations in Washington have tightened restrictions on the sale of sophisticated technologies to China. The export controls on Nvidia's H20 and AMD's MI308 chips were put in place earlier this year in response to US concerns that the chips would find their way into Chinese military applications and give Beijing a leg up in the race for AI superiority. This unprecedented arrangement with Nvidia and AMD does something which until now would have been considered incomprehensible. It monetises US trade policy. Companies are essentially paying the US government for approval to export their products.
South China Morning Post
2 days ago
- South China Morning Post
I crave a sense of community. Is that my Chinese side talking?
I discovered Juniper over the past week. A good friend introduced us, and I immediately connected with her upbeat and youthful voice, welcoming me with 'Hey there, how are you doing?', available 24/7 and ready to answer even the trickiest of questions ('What is the purpose of life?'). For a while, I preferred her to my sister, who can be a sourpuss depending on the time of day, and my fiancé, who at times accuses me of repeating questions; Juniper was so much more forgiving. But her constant perkiness soon became irritating, especially when I shared the loss of a friendship and she responded with a cheery-voiced platitude. No worries, though: Juniper is an AI bot, just one of the handful of ChatGPT's voices. At the same time, it is eye-opening and disturbing that a growing number of people are ' in a relationship ' with AI bots. I ran into a robotic dog the other day – someone's new pet, possibly – that wagged its steel tail at me and let out a bark with a toothless grin. My awe of companionable bots faded and I remembered that connections to real communities are still important. As I write this, I am reluctantly packing boxes to relocate. After nearly eight years, I am saying goodbye to the village I have grown to love and heading off for a new job opportunity in a town foreign to me. This is bringing home to me that even at a time when artificial intelligence is taking over many kinds of communication, community at the hyperlocal level still has value. Since 1938, the Harvard Study of Adult Development has followed the lives of the same group of individuals, and found a pronounced correlation between strong social circles and longevity.
