Iturralde's decade-long warnings on Bitcoin crash

Iturralde predicts Bitcoin collapse as gold surges 82%

The video has been online for eleven months and the thesis remains unchanged: Bitcoin is falling. This view is held by Alberto Iturralde, a stock market analyst at Capital Radio, Negocios TV, and Intereconomía, who also runs Operativa DAX, a firm charging users to replicate his trades in the German index in real time. A forum user notes he has predicted the cryptocurrency’s end for a decade. During this period, Bitcoin fell from $65,000 to $15,000 before rising to $125,000. The zero price never materialized.

Who is Iturralde and why has he warned about a Bitcoin crash for ten years?

His declared profession is that of a copy trader: he publishes his operations and paying subscribers replicate them. This service started in 2012 and still works, which some see as proof he isn’t selling nonsense. Others view it as a narrative that shifts depending on market winds, favoring gold one day and silver the next.

The core issue isn’t whether he is occasionally right. It’s how much weight being right once in ten years carries. When someone claims Bitcoin will go to zero for an entire decade while the asset multiplies eightfold in four years, the warning loses impact through sheer repetition. Yet there is still an audience listening, which is the real business behind it all.

Bitcoin vs. Gold: 155% gain versus 82%

The most repeated comparison fits in one line: gold has accumulated an 82% rise compared to Bitcoin’s 155%. This data underpins the central argument. If Bitcoin were the safe-haven asset many preach, it shouldn’t have direct correlation with the stock market. Nor does it correlate with precious metals: it moves more closely with the dollar than with gold.

There is an uncomfortable consequence in this data. If Bitcoin outperforms gold, the classic haven ceases to be the most profitable. If it crashes, those protected by metal sleep just fine. Both truths coexist, ensuring the debate never closes.

Why institutional capital is already inside Bitcoin

The second major shift is who is buying. It’s no longer enlightened retail investors: it’s sovereign funds, financial products with Bitcoin as underlying asset, and high-profile family wealth. Reports indicate a son of the US president placed $2.8 billion in a company linked to his father. China bought long ago. Western pension funds have entered. And derivative paper is being sold.

This changes the crash scenario but doesn’t eliminate it. A market controlled by no one can be pushed by anyone with sufficient size, and whales present since the beginning are using highs to offload their early coins. Hence the highlighted risk: this same official money could exit at any moment, leaving others exposed.

Some even calculate the reverse play. If a state holding one million bitcoins saw them multiply tenfold, it could reduce several trillion in public debt and keep printing money. The lingering question is what a pension fund does with its position if the price halves.

Can someone destroy Bitcoin from within?

The short answer is nobody knows. The long answer includes the possibility of a powerful actor entering the system to deliberately destroy it, though today there is no interest: too much official money is involved. There are also funds that stayed out and would welcome a crash to decapitate competition.

---

What happens to Bitcoin if the internet fails?

The most extreme scenario mentioned is an electromagnetic pulse. High-altitude nuclear explosions over three continents would fry electronic devices in those areas, with no replacements available for months or years. Without a network, no bitcoins are accessible. Hard drives would be useless even for local use. The cryptocurrency would evaporate without anyone moving a coin.

The rebuttal comes quickly: if that happens, it doesn’t matter for Bitcoin, the S&P 500, the DAX, the euro, or gold. What should be accumulated are canned goods. It’s the kind of objection that refutes nothing and everything.

Twenty kilos of gold: from €200,000 to two million

The physical counterpoint has its own arithmetic. 20 kilos of gold are worth around two million euros today; twenty-five years ago they cost about €200,000. But transporting that weight through an airport is another story, placing the two assets as complements: one is immune to network blackouts, the other to border controls.

Scale differences also matter. For average wealth, discussing bullion is theoretical. Bitcoin, however, can be bought in fractions from any mobile phone. That is its commercial strength and its trap.

Gold also faces a textbook suspicion: if gold maintains purchasing power when a currency collapses, it is the paper that falls, not the metal. In German hyperinflation, there were two marks, the gold mark and the paper mark, and only one bought what it used to.

Ultimately, the analysis always gets stuck at the same point. Everyone accepts there will be a brutal crash; nobody signs when. The video is eleven months old, the warning is ten years old, and the price has multiplied eightfold in four. As long as the official narrative keeps printing, the ball keeps rolling. When it stops, we’ll see who was left inside.