Gold price prediction of 1,300 euros fails to materialize

Gold at 1,300 euros: the collapse prediction that the market debunked

The prediction was definitive: gold would plunge to 1,300 euros per ounce. The message behind it claimed that the crash "has begun or is about to begin," attributing it to sources "directly related to intelligence." The accompanying narrative framed the episode as part of a supposed global operation to strip those hoarding metal of their purchasing power, executed just before a direct confrontation between powers. It even pointed to the mechanism—a massive sell-off by a major holder—and called for patience: "we will see the movements unfold."

With the deadline of several weeks having already passed—some place it "almost 3 months ago"—the metal has not moved in that direction. The 1,300-euro target remains unmet, and the episode has become a textbook case of what happens when a forecast is mistaken for a fact.

What the gold collapse forecast claimed

The initial premise left no room for doubt: a collapse in pogre, a real target of 1,300 euros per ounce, and daily monitoring of "the movements occurring in these days and weeks." The underlying thesis is that there is a coordinated global operation to strip metal holders of their acquisition capacity, preceding a direct military conflict.

Regarding the possible ways to drive the price down to that level, the author highlights one: a massive sell-off. No further evidence was provided other than the origin of the contacts. This lack of substance is precisely what is criticized later: it is argued that a datum of this magnitude requires verifiable figures and that, without them, it is not reporting but futurism.

The deadline passed and the price did the opposite

The forecast set a horizon of weeks. After that time passed without fulfillment, the rebuttal became relentless: it is argued that the forecast expired, that the exact opposite peine, and that anyone who had trinc the advice would have lost money. The defense based on reports from a major investment bank is also dismissed for obvious reasons: an entity that issues paper is not going to recommend the asset that competes with it.

The question being repeated is simple: why would anyone trade metal for fiat money? The most cited answer inverts the logic of backing: money has value because it circulates, while gold circulates because it has value.

Who actually moves the gold price?

Here, the consensus is broader than it seems. It is pointed out that the major holders are the central banks and that they do not release a single ounce. It is added that from the City of London, the metal's price has been played with for decades and that the market is, in practice, intervened.

In response to the collapse narrative, two facts are cited. First: China extracts gold even at a loss, because metal has no homeland and survives currency blockades. Second: currencies can disappear—dollar, euro, ruble, or yen—but whatever replaces them will continue to accept metal. Within this framework, speaking of a collapse requires explaining what will take its place.

Gold vs. Bitcoin: the 50-euro experiment

The most uncomfortable argument for gold defenders is the historical comparison: thirteen years ago, 50 euros in bitcoin would have been equivalent to 10,000 coins worth an astronomical amount today, whereas the same 50 euros in gold would not have changed anyone's life.
The full development of that experiment leaves a conclusion that unsettles both sides: everything depends on the entry point.

The rebuttal is quick. It is argued that bitcoin is a market for specialists where the last to arrive finance the first, and this is contrasted with gold's status as an asset without counterparty risk, universally accepted and capable of preserving purchasing power for generations. Some estimate its historical return at around 7% annually and ask how that can be considered a bad business.

Paying with gold: grams worth more than the bill

The debate moves from charts to the counter. The most repeated example is a 50-euro payment with one gram of metal: the gram is worth much more than the bill, so no counterparty accepts it without disputing the exchange, and the one paying loses. From this, it is concluded that gold is not for day-to-day use, but for the day after.

The counter-offensive takes the scenario to the extreme. It proposes a 2026 without food, where a 33-cent can of tuna is exchanged for an ounce trading at 2,000 dollars, warning that if no one accepts the barter, one only needs to wait for hunger to do the work. The response is identical every time: nobody eats bullion, but the bullion survives the one who keeps it.

Fake coins, 15% premiums, and the gold rush in Turkey

The fine print of the physical market occupies the final section. A case of allegedly counterfeit coins placed through pawn shops serves as a reminder that even experienced buyers are not safe. The proposed alternative is private deals, in person and without intermediaries, with premiums ranging from 3% to 8% depending on the coin, and 15% in the case of silver relative to the spot price.

Turkey provides the closing note: jewelry and coins accumulated as a hedge against inflation and devaluations, and a social custom—metal as a gift for weddings, births, and ceremonies—that makes demand structural. It is not an investment position; it is a custom that functions as one.

Even though the metal has not reached 1,300 euros, the bet remains formally alive. The most unsettling data point is something else: the most extreme scenario presented here is not war, but bartering a 33-cent can of tuna for an ounce of gold.