Bitcoin price slump versus gold echoes tulip-bubble vibes

In a column published on December 6, 2025, she notes that while Bitcoin has delivered multi-year gains, its performance in 2025 has lagged badly behind gold. A few days before the article was written, Bitcoin was down about 16% over six months and still roughly 11% lower for that period despite a partial rebound, she writes. Over the same time, gold had climbed almost 60% over the past year and around 24% in six months, strengthening its role as a traditional store of value.

At the time of writing, Bitcoin trades near $89,600, according to market data, underscoring the coin’s continued volatility and its sensitivity to changes in risk appetite and interest-rate expectations.

The column contrasts the earlier narrative that Bitcoin could act as “digital gold” with the way it has behaved during recent bouts of market stress. While long-term holders have seen strong gains since 2020, shorter-term investors who bought in the last year have faced double-digit drawdowns, even as gold has pushed to fresh highs.

Webb frames the comparison in simple portfolio terms. Over five years, someone who bought and held Bitcoin would still be ahead by almost fourfold, but an investor who rotated into gold over the past year would have seen steadier and stronger returns over that horizon, with far smaller swings along the way. That gap in recent performance, she argues, weakens the case for treating Bitcoin as a straightforward hedge comparable to bullion.

The piece also underscores how difficult it is for investors to understand what really drives Bitcoin in the short run. While gold’s movements are still closely linked to inflation expectations, real yields and demand for defensive assets, Bitcoin’s price action can be influenced at the same time by macro data, leverage in derivatives markets and shifts in speculative sentiment, making it harder to use as a reliable form of insurance.

Against that backdrop, describing Bitcoin as a kind of “digital tulip” is meant to highlight its dependence on confidence and narrative. The column argues that without a clear, stable link to underlying cash flows or to a well-defined macro role, the asset’s value rests heavily on the willingness of new buyers to accept higher prices, in contrast to gold’s long-established place in central-bank reserves and private wealth portfolios.

Even so, Webb does not deny that Bitcoin can deliver large gains over time. The figures she cites – nearly 400% appreciation over five years versus gold’s lower, but steadier, rise – show why many investors continue to hold some exposure. The question she raises is whether, after the swings of 2025 and the strength in gold, Bitcoin still deserves to be viewed as a core hedge in a portfolio or should instead be treated more cautiously as a high-risk, speculative asset.