Abdul Rafay Gadit, Bitcoin as Digital Gold or Macro Asset: Inflation, Liquidity, and Market Reality
Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Vocal.Media
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2026/05/02
Photo by Kanchanara on Unsplash
Abdul Rafay Gadit is Co-Founder of ZIGChain, where he works at the intersection of blockchain infrastructure, digital assets, and market strategy. His recent public commentary reflects a broad macro perspective spanning commodities, startups, and crypto markets. He has argued that a dramatic rise in silver would require sustained inflation, low real interest rates, and weakening confidence in monetary systems. He has also assessed the EU Inc proposal through the practical lens of startup formation, capital structures, tax, and labor constraints. On digital assets, Gadit has emphasized selectivity, suggesting that durable altcoin success depends on real utility, sustainable economics, and regulatory clarity.
In this interview, Scott Douglas Jacobsen speaks with Abdul Rafay Gadit on Bitcoin’s evolving identity as both a macro-sensitive asset and emerging monetary instrument. Gadit explains how inflation, interest rates, and liquidity cycles shape Bitcoin’s behavior, challenging simplistic “digital gold” narratives. He highlights shifting correlations, institutional frameworks, and the divide between retail optimism and risk management. The discussion emphasizes Bitcoin’s long-term legitimacy depending on adoption, market structure, and resilience under sustained financial stress.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Has Bitcoin become something closer to a macro-sensitive risk asset with a branding problem, or not?
Abdul Rafay Gadit: I think the honest answer is yes, in the short run, but that is not the whole story. Bitcoin does trade like a macro-sensitive asset when liquidity tightens, rates move sharply, or markets start de-risking. We have enough evidence of that now. But I also think the “branding problem” comes from people expecting it to behave like gold on every difficult day. Bitcoin is not failing in its position as “digital gold”; it’s still early. Gold has centuries to mature, whereas Bitcoin is still being monetized in real time. So the mistake is not calling it digital gold, but assuming it should react like centuries-old gold in every single stress window. Over short periods, the marginal buyer still matters a lot, and that buyer is often leveraged, momentum-driven, or benchmark-aware.
Jacobsen: What do inflation shocks and rapid interest-rate changes reveal about the strengths and weaknesses of the digital gold claim?
Gadit: They reveal both the truth and the limits of the slogan. The strength is that Bitcoin has real monetary attributes: fixed supply, no sovereign issuer, global portability, and increasing relevance when people worry about currency debasement or the credibility of traditional systems.
BlackRock frames it as a scarce, decentralized, non-sovereign asset, and Fidelity argues that over longer horizons, Bitcoin has shown a relationship with monetary inflation and global liquidity.
But the weakness is equally clear. When rates rise fast and liquidity gets drained, Bitcoin often behaves more like a long-duration, high-beta asset than a defensive hedge. That is why 2022 hurt, and in tighter liquidity conditions like 2025, gold outperformed Bitcoin meaningfully, highlighting this sensitivity. So I would say inflation shocks did not kill the digital gold thesis, but forced it to grow up.
Jacobsen: How should observers interpret Bitcoin’s changing correlation with equities?
Gadit: I would not read correlation as identity, but rather read it as a regime signal. Bitcoin’s long-run correlation with equities is still fairly low on average, around 0.15 to 0.2 depending on the dataset. But in stress periods, that correlation can jump sharply, and highlights: when the market is deleveraging, the short-term driver is liquidity. JPMorgan’s work is blunt on this point.
In risk-off windows, Bitcoin has historically behaved much worse than gold. NYDIG also shows that correlations can rise into the 0.4 to 0.6 range during stress, even if the long-term average remains low. So when people say “Bitcoin is just another tech trade,” that is too simplistic. But when people ignore those spikes and pretend correlation never matters, that is also naive. Bitcoin is not one thing; it changes character depending on ownership, leverage, and the macro regime.
Jacobsen: What frameworks are being used to assess Bitcoin today, e.g., store of value, portfolio diversifier, speculative instrument, or something else entirely?
Gadit: The market is using all of those frameworks at once, which is why the debate gets messy. One camp still sees Bitcoin primarily as an aspirational store of value or a hedge against monetary disorder. Another sees it as a portfolio tool: volatile, yes, but potentially useful in small size because of its asymmetric upside and still-imperfect correlation to traditional assets. Fidelity even describes it in partly venture-like terms because a modest allocation can have an outsized impact on portfolio outcomes. Then there is the tactical camp, which treats it as a high-beta macro instrument that responds to liquidity, regulation, ETF flows, and positioning. I think the mature view is not to force one label. Bitcoin is a monetary asset in development, a portfolio alternative, and a speculative trading vehicle all at the same time, with the weighting shifting depending on time horizon.
Jacobsen: What is the gap between retail conviction in Bitcoin’s long-term story and the more cautious risk-management approach?
Gadit: The gap is mostly about sizing as retail conviction often starts with a simple idea: fixed supply, growing adoption, long-term upside. Risk managers ask a different set of questions. What is the drawdown profile? What happens in a liquidity squeeze? How much total portfolio risk does this position add? How does it behave when equities are falling?
The gap comes down to this: retail investors often focus on the long-term story, while risk managers focus on what can go wrong before that story plays out. They may still believe in Bitcoin, but they have to be much more careful about sizing, timing, and overall portfolio risk.
Jacobsen: Do you think Bitcoin’s future depends more on price appreciation?
Gadit: Price appreciation gets attention, but it does not create legitimacy on its own. Durable monetary assets are not defined by the best bull market narrative. They are defined by whether people keep allocating to them when the easy upside is no longer obvious. For Bitcoin, the real test is whether it keeps earning a place in savings, treasury strategy, collateral frameworks, and institutional portfolios. That is why developments like spot ETF access, more efficient ETP mechanics, listed options, and even sovereign-style reserve treatment matter more than price alone. Price can pull people in, but an efficient structure is what keeps them there.
Jacobsen: What distinguishes Bitcoin from altcoins in a market environment that increasingly rewards real usage and regulatory clarity?
Gadit: Bitcoin’s edge is that it does not need to win the same argument most altcoins need to win. Altcoins increasingly have to prove product-market fit, real usage, fee generation, governance quality, and regulatory footing. Bitcoin’s case is different. It is the cleanest monetary asset in the sector: fixed supply, no management team to trust, no foundation roadmap to underwrite, the deepest liquidity, the strongest institutional wrappers, and the clearest regulatory treatment in major markets.
The CFTC has long treated Bitcoin as a commodity, the SEC approved spot Bitcoin ETPs in 2024 and later allowed in-kind creation and redemption, and policy engagement in the U.S. has continued to evolve toward clearer institutional treatment. That does not make Bitcoin risk-free. But it does mean Bitcoin is competing more on monetary credibility and institutional acceptability, while many altcoins are still competing on execution. That said, some altcoins are targeting entirely different use cases, so the comparison is not always one-to-one.
Jacobsen: What market, policy, or institutional developments would determine whether Bitcoin matures into a durable monetary asset or remains a narrative?
Gadit: I think there are four big tests. First, ownership quality has to keep improving. When more Bitcoin sits with long-duration allocators, the monetary-asset case becomes more credible. Second, the market structure has to deepen: better custody, better derivatives, more efficient ETP plumbing, broader collateral use, and fewer frictions for institutions.
Third, policy clarity has to keep improving as clear rules do not guarantee adoption, but serious capital rarely arrives without them.
And fourth, Bitcoin has to prove it can hold demand in difficult macro conditions for reasons beyond speculation. If the shock is mild, Bitcoin can trade like another macro headwind, but if it attracts sustained demand during a true financial stress event—not just a liquidity cycle—that is when the monetary-asset case stops being a narrative and becomes reality.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for the opportunity and your time, Abdul.
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 