Bitwise CIO: Sanctions could push Bitcoin’s market beyond gold

Bitwise CIO Matt Hougan argued Bitcoin’s total addressable market is “probably a lot bigger” than gold’s, framing sanctions and restricted payment rails as a structural tailwind. Traders are also watching an extreme BTC-versus-gold drawdown as a relative-value setup, with one prominent target zone at $87,500–$90,000 over roughly three months.

Key Takeaways

• Bitcoin’s total addressable market was framed as larger than gold’s, with Bitwise CIO Matt Hougan arguing it is “probably a lot bigger than the $38 trillion gold market alone.”
• Since U.S. and Israeli airstrikes began on Feb. 28, Hougan’s scorecard showed Bitcoin up 12% while the S&P 500 was down 1% and gold had fallen 10%.
• BTC traded up to $76,000 this week, a two-month high attributed to US-Iran war relief and cooler U.S. inflation data, per TradingView.
• Trader Michaël van de Poppe called the BTC-vs-gold correction the heaviest in Bitcoin’s history and projected a move back toward $87,500–$90,000 within about three months.

Hougan’s Crisis-Performance Scorecard Since Feb. 28

Hougan’s core pitch starts with a simple scoreboard. He wrote: “Since U.S. and Israeli airstrikes began on February 28, bitcoin is up 12% while the S&P 500 is down 1% and gold has fallen 10%.”

That framing matters because it pushes back on the default desk instinct that BTC trades as a high beta risk asset that should fade in geopolitical stress. Hougan explicitly challenged that assumption, writing: “This has caught many off guard. Bitcoin is a risk asset, and many assumed it would fall during a risk-off geopolitical shock.”

Price action has helped keep the argument alive. Bitcoin rallied to $76,000 this week, described as a two-month high, on a mix of US-Iran war relief and cooler U.S. inflation numbers, according to TradingView.

The “Apolitical Alternative” Thesis: Sanctions, SWIFT, and Settlement Rails

Hougan’s mechanism is not “war equals money printing.” He dismissed that line directly: “Pundits have grasped for explanations… Both arguments are wrong.” Instead, he framed Bitcoin as an “apolitical alternative” when traditional settlement rails get constrained.

In market terms, he is expanding BTC’s TAM, or total addressable market, which is the maximum pool of demand if the asset captured all relevant use cases. Hougan argued Bitcoin’s target market is “probably a lot bigger” than gold’s roughly $30T market cap and “probably a lot bigger than the $38 trillion gold market alone.”

The SWIFT precedent is central here. SWIFT is the global bank messaging network used to coordinate cross-border payments. Hougan pointed to Russia being shut out of SWIFT in 2022 as an example of payment-network “weaponization,” writing: “I mused at the time that the weaponization of SWIFT might one day open up space for bitcoin.”

He extended the same logic to Iran, claiming Iran is under financial sanctions and an oil blockade and is “collecting crypto tolls for transit through the Strait of Hormuz.” That specific “crypto tolls” detail is an assertion in the packet and is not independently corroborated here, but it materially strengthens the sanctions-use-case narrative if verified.

Triggers That Could Validate—or Break—the Sanctions Bid

The cleanest validation signal is whether BTC can keep behaving like a crisis hedge in practice, not just in posts. Follow-through above the recent $76,000 two-month high area would support the idea that the market is pricing a sanctions and settlement-rails premium. A reversal back below that zone would weaken the “crisis outperformance” framing and pull BTC back toward the generic risk-asset bucket.

Cross-asset traders also have a second dashboard: BTC/XAU. The ratio recently hit its lowest levels since mid-2023 before starting a slow rebound. Continuation of that rebound would align with the “apolitical alternative” thesis. A renewed breakdown would argue the bid is more narrative than structural.

Finally, the highest-impact unknown is the Iran-related claim. Any new, independently verifiable reporting on crypto usage tied to sanctions or transit through the Strait of Hormuz would change how seriously desks model this as a durable demand channel.

BTC vs Gold (BTC/XAU): The Relative-Value Setup Traders Are Watching

Van de Poppe translated the macro story into a relative-value trigger. He said: “The recent correction of $BTC vs. Gold is the heaviest in the history of Bitcoin,” and argued mean reversion is likely.

He tied that to historical analogs, writing: “Comparing this to historical events, the average return after 12 months was 350-450% from this point.” He then mapped the range to price levels, saying that implies “an increase from $60,000 to $275,000,” and added: “In 3 months time, it's very likely that we'll be trading at $87,500-90,000.”

Those are forward-looking targets, not outcomes. The actionable piece for traders is the structure: an extreme BTC/XAU drawdown as the setup, with a defined retest zone in the high-$80Ks as the nearer-term waypoint.

Trading the Narrative Without Marrying the Targets

Hougan’s framing is useful because it forces a regime question. If BTC can outperform both equities and gold during a geopolitical shock, the market is treating it less like a levered tech proxy and more like a sanctions and settlement-rails trade.

I’m cautious on how much to pay for that thesis without verification of the strongest anecdotes. The threshold that matters is whether BTC/XAU can sustain a rebound from the mid-2023 lows while spot holds the $76,000 area on the next inflation print. If that holds, the setup starts to look structural rather than narrative-driven, and that is what would make the “TAM beyond gold” argument matter in practical positioning terms.

Sources

• Cointelegraph