In fact, bitcoin is not a protective asset and we have for this statement There are two reasons.
The first - Satoshi Nakamoto did not create a protective asset. Here is the time to be indignant and say that bitcoin was made to protect against banks, and it also appeared just after the 2008 crisis.
That's right, but the protection from banks is that during a crisis they take money from people by restricting cash withdrawals, freezing accounts and directing your funds to support the state.
The Bitcoin security mechanism is that there is no third party between the sender and receiver of the transaction that can block or cancel the transfer.
Also, no one can dispose of your funds, because only you know the private key needed for this .
And the fact that we are accustomed to considering bitcoin as a protective asset can be thanked for this by Mike Novogratz, Anthony Pompliano, Max Kaiser and other Bitcoin supporters. To everyone who talked about the advantage of bitcoin over fiat currencies due to the limited and transparent issue.
However, a somewhat erroneous opinion was formed. We have so often said that bitcoin - is the only line of defense against the Central Bank's printing press that they began to call it a protective asset.
At the moment, this is completely wrong and there is a second reason why the asset is considered protective not because someone said so, but because it behaves accordingly during a critical market situation.
During the 2000 crisis, gold showed the following dynamics. First, the price goes down, because the stock market is growing much faster, and it is more profitable to invest in stocks: