Tariff policies trigger market Fluctuation, Bitcoin's safe-haven property questioned

Recently, the President of the United States has once again introduced tariff policies, which have a significant impact on the global trade landscape. This decision has not only affected traditional financial markets but has also brought notable Fluctuation to the cryptocurrency market.

Looking back at history, Trump implemented a series of tariff policies during his term from 2017 to 2020. At that time, the Dow Jones Index fell by 500 points in response. In April 2025, Trump reintroduced even stricter tariff measures, the scope and intensity of which exceeded those of the past.

This policy led to a broad decline in the three major U.S. stock indices. From April 2 to 8, the Nasdaq index fell by over 2,300 points, the Dow Jones index dropped nearly 4,600 points, and the S&P 500 index fell below 5,000 points.

The cryptocurrency market was also not spared. The prices of crypto assets, represented by Bitcoin, fell sharply, with Bitcoin dropping to a low of 74,500 USDT on the evening of June 7. Data shows that within 24 hours of the tariff policy taking effect, the entire crypto market fell, with mainstream crypto assets generally down by 3%-10%, resulting in a total market cap evaporation of approximately 300 billion US dollars.

However, after Trump announced a 90-day pause on tariffs for 75 countries in communication on April 10, market sentiment has improved. The price of Bitcoin returned to the 80,000 USDT level, and the crypto market has also begun to warm up.

Nevertheless, market sentiment remains in a state of extreme fear. Trump's remarks on social media have raised questions about potential insider trading. At the same time, some investors are concerned that in extreme situations, certain large institutions may be forced to sell Bitcoin, triggering a "death spiral."

For a long time, Bitcoin has been praised as "digital gold," and one of its important characteristics is its role as a safe haven during times of crisis. However, whether in this tariff event or in its performance over the past six months, Bitcoin seems to have not perfectly fulfilled this role.

Comparing the price trends of Bitcoin and gold spot, it can be found that although both fluctuate in the same direction under the influence of the overall environment, Bitcoin exhibits higher volatility. In the past six months, gold prices have been steadily rising, while Bitcoin prices have shown a downward trend.

It is even more noteworthy that the correlation between Bitcoin and the three major U.S. stock indices is significantly increasing. This means that Bitcoin has not shown the independence of a "safe-haven asset" in the face of macro risks; instead, it is more closely aligned with the trends of high-risk assets.

Some analysis suggests that since the launch of the Bitcoin spot ETF, with the allocation by traditional financial institutions, Bitcoin is increasingly resembling a "high Beta asset incorporated into the global capital allocation system". Its price fluctuations are significantly influenced by factors such as U.S. Treasury yields, the U.S. dollar index, and macro policy expectations.

For institutional investors, Bitcoin does not seem to fully assume the role of a "hedging tool"; instead, it is viewed as an exposure to macroeconomic risks. In an environment of high interest rates, a strong dollar, and turmoil in the financial system, Bitcoin does not inherently possess "counter-cyclical" advantages, but rather serves more as a highly elastic speculative target.

This inevitably raises the question: If Bitcoin cannot serve as a safe haven at critical moments, and even shows sensitivity similar to tech stocks in the face of systemic risks, then is it really digital gold, or just another highly fluctuating asset with a faith label? This is not a denial of Bitcoin, but rather a reevaluation of the "pricing logic" of the entire crypto asset.

Nevertheless, historical experience shows that similar tariff events often drive the global trade mechanism towards greater maturity and rationality. Looking back at the most notorious Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 in American history, it ultimately led to further deterioration of the U.S. economy, soaring unemployment rates, and a shrinkage of global trade volume by nearly two-thirds. Three years later, the Roosevelt administration had to correct this with the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, initiating a long-term strategy of free trade for the United States.

The ultra-strong tariff policy proposed by the Trump administration, although more intense and broader in scope, quickly "hit the brakes" after an extreme short-term market reaction. This itself sends a signal: it is more like a bargaining chip than a substantive conflict.

It is worth noting that, according to data from the U.S. Treasury and CBO, the scale of U.S. Treasury bonds maturing in 2025 exceeds $9 trillion, and the fiscal deficit issue is urgent, with limited time left for the Federal Reserve to maintain high interest rates. At this time, tariff actions may be more likely to serve as a means of bringing about a "new round of capital inflow" to the United States.

In the face of market uncertainty, how should cryptocurrency investors respond? Is long-termism still applicable?

There is a view that long-termism is no longer simply about Bitcoin HODL. The uncertainty and fluctuation of the market may persist for a long time. Some industry insiders point out that investors should focus on projects with fundamentals and practical applications. Although Bitcoin may appreciate in value as a reserve asset over the long term, some projects with better fundamentals may outperform Bitcoin over a certain period.

What truly withstands the test of time in the crypto market is never the short-term price advantages, but rather the structural assets and on-chain application networks that still exist and are still utilized after each narrative collapse. Whether it's public chains, DePIN, AI-type infrastructures, or decentralized applications like wallets and cross-chain bridges, they are the underlying soil that supports the continued advancement of this industry.

When the "Beta attribute" obscures the original intention of Bitcoin itself, what we need is not a new emotional placebo, but rather a re-establishment of our judgment of the real value on-chain. Long-termism has never been an obsession with coin prices, but rather an understanding and participation in structural evolution.

What is truly worth investing in are those Web3 projects that build a new order through code and mechanisms. Instead of anxiously worrying about the market, it is better to understand the projects that are still iterating on protocols, promoting implementation, and genuinely trying to solve real-world problems with blockchain. This may be the direction that participants in the cryptocurrency market should focus on.