Recently, Howard Marks, founder of Oak Tree Capital, publicly criticized the investment logic of gold. He straightforwardly stated: the claim that gold preserves value is fundamentally flawed.

Why does he say that? Marks pointed out the fatal flaw of gold — it does not generate any cash flow. Stocks have dividends, bonds have interest, but gold? Nothing at all. Its price is entirely supported by market participants' psychological expectations, essentially a confidence game akin to "The Emperor's New Clothes." No one dares to break this consensus, so everyone continues to believe it’s valuable.

From a valuation perspective, it’s even more painful. Cash assets can be evaluated using logical frameworks, but gold cannot be priced by any traditional methods. History also does not favor gold — whenever a financial crisis truly hits, gold prices still plummet, rendering its so-called safe-haven properties virtually useless.

That said, gold has indeed risen by 7% this year, with central banks continuing to increase their holdings and geopolitical tensions providing a boost. But Marks issued a very clear warning: without real value backing the hype, it will eventually cool down.

This viewpoint has sparked quite a bit of discussion in the crypto community. Some agree, while others insist on gold’s traditional status. BTC and ETH holders are also voicing their opinions — can Bitcoin truly replace gold as a safe haven? Whose logic is more convincing?