Kyung Il Yang

Chief Editor, Gomdolee

stephen@gomdolee.com

March 30th, 2026

1. Introduction

The functions of money have long been central to economic thought. Since Jevons (1875) and Menger (1892) formalized the tripartite classification — medium of exchange, unit of account, and store of value — the third function has been particularly associated with assets capable of preserving purchasing power across time. Gold has served as the paradigmatic example for centuries, valued for its durability, scarcity, and widespread acceptance. In recent years, Bitcoin has been positioned by proponents as its digital successor: a fixed-supply, decentralised asset designed to function as “digital gold,” offering an escape from fiat debasement and traditional monetary systems.

The events of early 2026 challenge the descriptive accuracy of this label for both assets. In late January, spot gold reached an intraday high near USD 5,600–5,608 per ounce amid policy uncertainty and safe-haven demand. This was followed by one of the most abrupt corrections in modern history: a single-day decline exceeding 9% — the largest since 1983 — with one-week realized volatility surpassing 90%. Silver experienced even more extreme movements. The escalation of conflict involving Iran from late February added further stress. Geopolitical shocks of this nature would conventionally be expected to reinforce safe-haven demand and support stable or appreciating prices. Instead, gold displayed continued volatility, including significant weekly drawdowns, even as uncertainty persisted. By late March, prices had retreated substantially from earlier highs.

Bitcoin showed parallel behavior. Marketed as a superior, system-independent store of value and inflation hedge, it exhibited high volatility and moved in tandem with risk assets and gold during the same stress windows, failing to demonstrate the decoupling many expected.

This paper contends that the problem lies not primarily with gold or Bitcoin as individual assets, but with the conceptual category of “store of value” itself — particularly when routinely presented as synonymous with reliable inflation hedging and long-term purchasing-power stability. The two notions often pull in opposing directions: a true store implies low short-term volatility and predictability, while an effective inflation hedge may require price appreciation during rising prices, frequently accompanied by heightened volatility. Modern financial markets, characterized by leverage, rapid narrative transmission, and frequent regime shifts, amplify these tensions.

The analysis proceeds from gold, the traditional benchmark, to Bitcoin, the marketed alternative, before addressing the deeper ontological question: what “value” are market participants actually attempting to store? It concludes that the unqualified use of the term risks misleading investors and policymakers by overstating stability in contemporary markets.

2. Literature Review: The Contested Status of “Store of Value”

The intellectual foundations of the “store of value” concept trace back to classical political economy. Menger (1892) argued that money emerges as the most saleable commodity capable of bridging present and future exchanges. Jevons (1875) codified the three functions that remain standard in textbooks.

Twentieth-century contributions introduced important qualifications. Keynes (1936) emphasized liquidity preference under uncertainty, suggesting that the desire to hold money as a store is often driven less by confidence in its stability than by the need for flexibility. Post-Keynesian scholars such as Smithin (2003) and Lavoie (2014) have argued that “store of value” should not be regarded as a primary function at all, but rather as derivative — emerging only when macroeconomic stability and institutional credibility are already present.

Empirical research on gold has produced nuanced rather than unqualified support. Baur and Lucey (2010) and subsequent studies (Baur and McDermott, 2010; Beckmann et al., 2015; Ji et al., 2020) show that gold’s safe-haven properties are time-varying and context-specific. It performs more reliably during certain equity crashes or inflationary episodes but can correlate positively with risk assets during liquidity-driven sell-offs.

Central-bank reserve management literature echoes this contingency. BIS (2019, 2021) and IMF papers (Arslanalp et al., 2022) note that gold’s appeal stems from lack of counterparty risk and diversification benefits rather than invariant purchasing power.

Behavioral and narrative approaches add a critical layer. Shiller (2019) demonstrates how powerful economic stories drive asset prices through social contagion, while Soros (1987) highlights reflexivity: widespread belief in an asset’s “store of value” properties can temporarily validate that belief until sentiment shifts.

Bitcoin’s emergence revived these debates. Proponents claim its fixed supply and decentralized architecture make it a superior store of value and inflation hedge. Critics point to its extreme volatility. The early 2026 period provides fresh evidence to evaluate these claims against observable behavior.

Despite scholarly qualifications, the term “store of value” remains deeply embedded in policy discourse and investment practice. This discrepancy between theoretical nuance and practical usage creates a conceptual gap that the price dynamics of early 2026 illuminate with unusual clarity.

3. Theoretical Framework: Regime Dependence and the Limits of Static Classification

A genuine “store of value” should exhibit relative price stability and reliable purchasing-power preservation over time. When conflated with “inflation hedge,” the expectation expands to include protection against currency debasement. These two attributes are not always compatible. Stability implies muted volatility; effective inflation hedging may require noticeable price appreciation, often accompanied by volatility as expectations adjust.

A more useful approach is to view purported stores of value through a regime-dependent lens. Asset behavior varies systematically across macroeconomic states, liquidity conditions, narrative intensity, and correlation structures. Prices result from the interaction of a baseline component (utility and scarcity) and a variable financial premium driven by narrative, leverage, and regime expectations.

This framework reveals the limitations of static classifications. The classical “store of value” label treats the property as largely intrinsic and time-invariant. In reality, the capacity of any asset to preserve purchasing power depends heavily on the prevailing regime. An asset may perform reasonably well in one state while behaving like a high-beta risk asset in another.

At a deeper level, these observations prompt a fundamental question: what “value” are we actually attempting to store? Economic value is not a fixed substance. It is subjective, relational, and emergent — arising from human preferences, institutional arrangements, technological conditions, and collective belief. Attempts to “store” value are therefore always bets on regime continuity and narrative persistence.

This insight applies with particular force in highly financialized markets. Both gold and Bitcoin operate within this environment. Gold carries a baseline of real-world utility and centuries of acceptance. Bitcoin relies on protocol-enforced scarcity and narratives of monetary sovereignty. Yet in early 2026, both displayed price behavior dominated by short-term sentiment, liquidity dynamics, and correlation with broader risk appetite rather than steady preservation of purchasing power.

The regime-dependent framework thus provides a more accurate descriptive lens and highlights why the unqualified term “store of value” risks misleading investors and policymakers by promising a degree of stability that modern markets rarely sustain.

4. Empirical Analysis – Gold as the Traditional Benchmark

The events of January to March 2026 provide a compelling test of gold’s status as the archetypal store of value and inflation hedge. Gold should exhibit relative stability and reliable purchasing-power preservation, particularly during periods of elevated uncertainty. The observed price action instead revealed behavior more characteristic of a risk asset.

In late January 2026, spot gold advanced sharply to an intraday high near USD 5,600–5,608 per ounce amid policy uncertainty and safe-haven demand. This was followed by one of the most abrupt corrections in modern history: a single-day decline exceeding 9% — the largest since 1983 — with one-week realized volatility surpassing 90%. Silver experienced even more extreme movements.

The escalation of conflict involving Iran from late February offered a further test. Geopolitical shocks of this nature would conventionally be expected to reinforce safe-haven demand and support stable or appreciating prices. Initial reactions showed some safe-haven flows, but the overall pattern remained volatile. Gold experienced significant weekly drawdowns despite persistent regional tensions. By late March, prices had retreated substantially from earlier highs.

This behavior is difficult to reconcile with the classical expectation of a store of value. A genuine store should demonstrate resilience and relative stability when risk appetite declines. Instead, gold displayed pronounced sensitivity to short-term sentiment shifts, liquidity conditions, and correlation dynamics with other assets. At times, it moved in tandem with broader risk sentiment rather than acting as a consistent counterweight.

Gold possesses genuine strengths — industrial utility, cultural demand, and historical acceptance as a reserve asset without counterparty risk. These attributes provide a partial floor. Nevertheless, the financial premium driven by “store of value” and “safe haven” narratives proved highly volatile in early 2026. When that premium expanded, prices surged; when it compressed, prices fell sharply, even amid geopolitical stress.

The distinction between safe-haven and store-of-value functions is particularly clear here. Gold provided intermittent safe-haven characteristics but failed to deliver the consistent, low-volatility preservation implied by the store-of-value label. Its movements were too violent and too responsive to liquidity and sentiment shifts to justify the unqualified designation.

5. From Gold to Bitcoin: The Marketed Alternative

If even gold — with tangible utility, centuries of acceptance, and institutional backing — exhibits pronounced risk-asset volatility and fails to deliver consistent purchasing-power preservation, then Bitcoin’s claim as a superior store of value faces an even higher evidentiary bar.

Bitcoin was explicitly marketed as transcending the limitations of traditional systems. Its fixed supply cap, decentralized protocol, and independence from central authority were presented as features that would make it a more reliable “digital gold” — a true inflation hedge and stable store of value immune to fiat debasement.

In early 2026, Bitcoin displayed high volatility and patterns that closely paralleled those of gold and broader risk assets. It experienced sharp corrections and moved in tandem with risk sentiment during liquidity-driven phases. Even during the Iran conflict escalation, Bitcoin failed to demonstrate the independent, resilient behavior many proponents anticipated. Instead, it continued to show high sensitivity to broader market dynamics, including dollar strength, interest-rate expectations, and overall risk appetite.

This parallel movement is noteworthy. Bitcoin’s protocol enforces absolute scarcity, a feature frequently cited as superior to gold’s supply dynamics. Yet in practice, its price path was dominated by the same forces: narrative intensity, leveraged positioning, liquidity flows, and correlation with traditional risk assets. The asset did not reliably act as a stable store of purchasing power or a consistent inflation hedge.

The critique here is narrower but fundamental. The specific claim that Bitcoin functions as a superior “store of value” in the strong sense implied by the term is not supported by its price behavior during the same period in which gold also fell short of classical expectations.

6. Parallel Behavior and the Deeper Systemic Issue

The parallel volatility and risk-asset characteristics of gold and Bitcoin in early 2026 point to a systemic rather than asset-specific problem. If the traditional benchmark fails to deliver the stability and consistent inflation protection expected of a store of value, and the marketed alternative follows similar patterns, then the limitations likely reside in the conceptual category itself.

This does not mean gold or Bitcoin lack useful roles. Gold retains industrial and cultural functions and serves as a diversification tool in certain regimes. Bitcoin offers technological advantages in transferability and censorship resistance. The issue lies in the expectation that either can reliably serve as a “store of value” in the classical monetary sense — a stable, low-volatility preserver of purchasing power that also functions effectively as an inflation hedge.

The tension between these two attributes becomes evident under stress. A true store of value should exhibit relative price stability across regimes. An effective inflation hedge may require price appreciation during inflationary periods, often accompanied by volatility. Modern financial markets amplify these contradictions. Both assets operated within the same leveraged, narrative-driven environment in early 2026. Their price paths were shaped more by sentiment, liquidity conditions, and correlation dynamics than by any inherent capacity for stable value preservation.

This parallel behavior raises the deeper ontological question at the heart of the analysis: what “value” are we actually attempting to store?

Economic value is not a fixed, objective commodity. It is subjective, relational, and emergent — arising from human preferences, institutional trust, technological context, and collective belief. When market participants speak of “storing value,” they are implicitly betting on the continuity of certain regimes and the persistence of certain narratives.

When those regimes shift or narratives compress — as occurred repeatedly in early 2026 — the stored “value” proves far less stable than the label suggests. The violent movements in both gold and Bitcoin illustrate this fragility. Neither asset provided the smooth, predictable bridge between present and future purchasing power that the term “store of value” classically implies.

The “store of value” concept, as commonly deployed, functions more as a powerful narrative than as a precise analytical category. It creates expectations of stability and reliability that modern financialized markets rarely sustain. The unqualified use of the label, especially when conflated with reliable inflation hedging, risks misleading investors, portfolio managers, and policymakers about the true nature of the risks and regime dependencies involved.

The early 2026 experience serves as a timely reminder that in an era of rapid regime shifts, geopolitical volatility, and financial innovation, conceptual precision matters. Recognizing the subjective, relational, and regime-dependent nature of value encourages greater intellectual humility in monetary theory and more adaptive, regime-aware approaches in investment and policy practice.

References

Arslanalp, S., Eichengreen, B., & Simpson-Bell, C. (2022). The stealth erosion of dollar dominance. IMF Working Paper No. 2022/058.  

Baur, D. G., & Lucey, B. M. (2010). Is gold a hedge or a safe haven? Financial Review, 45(2), 217–229.  

Baur, D. G., & McDermott, T. K. (2010). Is gold a safe haven? International evidence. Journal of Banking & Finance, 34(8), 1886–1898.  

Beckmann, J., Berger, T., & Czudaj, R. (2015). Does gold act as a hedge or a safe haven for stocks? Economic Modelling, 48, 16–24.  

BIS (2019, 2021). Annual Economic Report. Bank for International Settlements.  

Ji, Q., Zhang, D., & Zhao, Y. (2020). Searching for safe-haven assets during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Review of Financial Analysis, 71, 101526.  

Jevons, W. S. (1875). Money and the Mechanism of Exchange. D. Appleton and Company.  

Keynes, J. M. (1936). The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money. Macmillan.  

Lavoie, M. (2014). Post-Keynesian Economics: New Foundations. Edward Elgar.  

Menger, C. (1892). On the origin of money. Economic Journal, 2(6), 239–255.  

Shiller, R. J. (2017). Narrative economics. American Economic Review, 107(4), 967–1004.  

Shiller, R. J. (2019). Narrative Economics. Princeton University Press.  

Smithin, J. (2003). What is Money? Routledge.  

Soros, G. (1987). The Alchemy of Finance. John Wiley & Sons.  

Tobin, J. (1958). Liquidity preference as behavior towards risk. Review of Economic Studies, 25(2), 65–86.  

World Gold Council. (2024–2025). Gold Demand Trends reports and quarterly updates.

BBC, CNBC, Reuters, Fortune, and Trading Economics coverage of gold and Bitcoin price movements, January–March 2026.