Gold prices experienced a dramatic and historic downturn this week, settling at $4,488 per ounce on Friday after a further 3.5% daily decline. This sharp fall culminated in an 11% loss for the week, marking the precious metal’s worst weekly performance since 1983, according to data confirmed by TradingView. The sustained sell-off erases a significant portion of the gains that saw gold rally to a record high near $5,500 in late January, prompting analysts to question the traditional perception of gold as an unassailable safe-haven asset during times of crisis.
The primary catalyst for this reversal appears to be the geopolitical landscape in the Middle East. While the initial US and Israeli attacks on Iran on February 28 sparked a flight to safety that boosted gold, the conflict’s subsequent dynamics have introduced complex, risk-off factors. Concerns over a prolonged disruption to global oil flows, particularly through the critical Strait of Hormuz, have created energy supply fears. However, concurrent signals suggesting a potential de-escalation—such as reports that US President Donald Trump is considering “winding down” military efforts—have countered initial panic, reducing the immediate demand for traditional hedges like gold.
Monetary Policy and Yield Competition
Beyond geopolitics, shifting monetary policy expectations are applying critical pressure. Traders are increasingly pricing in a scenario where the US Federal Reserve holds interest rates steady for an extended period. This environment makes yield-bearing assets like US Treasury bonds more attractive relative to non-yielding gold, which incurs storage and insurance costs. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell reinforced this narrative on Wednesday, noting that higher energy prices—a potential outcome of the Middle East conflict—could push inflation higher in the short term, a statement that typically supports a “higher for longer” interest rate stance, further diminishing gold’s appeal.
The scale of the recent capitulation is staggering. Since the February 28 attacks, gold has shed more than 15% of its value, wiping out billions from its market capitalization in a matter of weeks. The volatility in late January, when prices surged to about $5,320 before crashing to $4,650, already demonstrated the market’s fragility, with over $2 trillion in market value evaporating rapidly. The current decline, however, is more sustained and reflects a deeper reassessment of gold’s role in the current macro environment.
Gold’s change in price over the last 12 months. Source: Trading Economics
Bitcoin’s Divergent Performance
In a notable divergence, Bitcoin (BTC) has shown markedly different behavior during the same period of Middle East tensions. While gold has faltered, Bitcoin has clawed back lost ground, rising more than 11.6% to $70,535 since the initial attacks on Iran. This contrast highlights a potential shift in how “digital safe haven” narratives are being tested against traditional bullion in the current climate. Over the full 12-month period, gold maintains a strong outperformance, up 48.5% compared to Bitcoin’s 16.5% retracement, underscoring that the recent week’s events represent a short-term tactical shift rather than a long-term trend reversal for the two assets.
Related: Bitcoin price aims to hold $70K amid rising inflation concerns
The current gold sell-off serves as a powerful case study in how multiple forces—geopolitical risk, energy markets, and central bank policy—interact to challenge long-held market assumptions. For investors, the historic weekly decline underscores that even the most trusted safe havens are not immune to the potent combination of de-escalating geopolitical headlines and a stubbornly firm monetary policy outlook.
Magazine: Is China hoarding gold so yuan becomes global reserve instead of USD?
Cointelegraph is committed to independent, transparent journalism. This news article is produced in accordance with Cointelegraph’s Editorial Policy and aims to provide accurate and timely information. Readers are encouraged to verify information independently. Read our Editorial Policy.
