I don’t agree. Bitcoin is a system that requires no third parties other than the owner and the recipient. The rise and fall of Bitcoin’s price depend on the laws of supply and demand, not on the global political situation you mentioned. Global political conditions only influence market participants.
But demand for Bitcoin is entirely dependent on the market participants, investors. So, it is not entirely wrong to say that the global political situation has an influence on bitcoin.
The Bitcoin network and protocol may be independent of global politics, but the price of Bitcoin is not.
Prices depend on how strongly the laws of supply and demand apply. The levels of supply and demand can be influenced by global conditions. When global conditions are tense, investor confidence is affected. If global politics are stable—such as with the recent news of an agreement between the United States and Iran regarding the Strait of Hormuz—this will have a positive impact on investor confidence.
It depends on the perspective. If people view Bitcoin as a safe haven, they assess it from a hedging perspective because, historically, its overall price trend has been consistently rising since its launch.
For those who don’t see it that way, no matter how strongly we explain it, they won’t accept it. That’s what I mean by “it depends on the perspective.”
Yes, that depends on each person's perspective and definition of a safe haven. However, according to the traditional definition, Bitcoin is not considered a safe haven asset.
Is it too risky by traditional standards? Even traditional assets considered safe havens carry risks.