Would Bitcoin be a luminaire if a World War III is unleashed?

For the umpteenth time, Bitcoin found himself in a Impasse. The intensification of the war between Russia and Ukraine, in 2022, or the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, in 2020, were two significant events that could reduce the cryptoactive, without achieving it. The arms conflict between Iran, Israel and now the United States, which seems to be attenuated by the moments, had a similar scale, and does not seem to invest a great existential risk for Bitcoin.

But a higher obligation is imposed: understanding and anticipating whether Bitcoin will shine or turn off, as a monetary technology, amid a monstrous climate: that of a hypothetical III World War. It is said hypothetical because, for now, everything indicates that we will not know (nor we want to know) if Bitcoin is tailored to a global war.

Call dollar, euro, ruble or yuan, (group that we will now call “Fíat Group”), the regional wars They have aggressive economic consequences for these currencies. World wars the same, but on a more destructive scale. If Bitcoin (BTC) is one more currency and can be classified as such along with these currencies, it would be fair to compare it with them, determining how much wars affect it.

In order not to make the explanation too extensive, BTC can be compared to Fíat coins in at least one key aspect: in the circulating supply, that in Bitcoin has a fixed limit of 21 million (Not counting the BTC lost forever). Unless an unlikely change in the difficult consensus between developers allows it, not even one more BTC will be issued once Bitcoin reaches its limit of 21 million units.

The previous graph shows a not obvious reality, but the following: how much more the supply of Bitcoins decreases, entering the circulating after each halving, the price of the currency increases in the medium term.

Let’s compare the supply of BTC with the global M2 supply. This indicator that presents the existing global money supply converted to US dollars. In essence, it is a measure How much money is available in the world for investment and spending in the main economies (those of the group “Fíat Coins”).

Curious note: During the wars, this supply tends to experience increased peaks, for reasons that will be explained later.

The Global M2 supply does not measure the devaluation of the Fiat currencies of different economies, but the joint growth of its supply. Nor does it contemplate the increase in consumer price indices, which has a lateral but tangible impact on the purchasing power of these currencies.

While global liquidity does not stop rising, motivated mainly for the issuance of money by the central banksthe loss of value of the Fíat currencies demonstrate the following reality:

According to TrainingView data, on September 1, 2016, 1 BTC could be purchased at the approximate price of 800 euros. In June 2025, BTC himself costs about 90,000 euros.

On September 1, 2016, 1 BTC in US dollars cost a little less than $ 700. In June 2025, it costs about $ 100,000.

According to Google Finance, in the same month of 2016, 1 BTC in Chinese Yuan cost about 4,000 Chinese yuan. Today, a BTC has a cost of more than 700,000 yuan.

According to the same source, in September 2016 1 BTC cost about 40,000 rubles, the Russian currency. Currently, 1 BTC costs up to 8 million rubles.

In 2025, as is remarkable in the Streetstats graph, The Global M2 is experiencing a “free ascent” while the Fíat group continues to devalue against Bitcoin. The actions of public companies also tend to increase their quotes during wars, as marketwatch data reveals, although for possibly different reasons, such as that the increase in the global money emission increases the appetite due to risk, since there is more liquidity available to invest. Investors who see BTC as a good of this class can also rotate towards the cryptoactive in search of yields.

In summary, the more the global money supply grows, the Fiat coins tend to devalue against BTC. This disparity between Bitcoin and the Fíat Group has nothing to do with wars, but with the nature of its monetary policies. The wars They only tend to intensify these differences.

Why is the Fíat group devalued during wars?

As Cryptonoticias reported, Adam Livingston, the author of the book The Bitcoin Age and The Great Harvest, He commented that the Iran-Israel-EE.UU war I was going to come with a Increased supply M2which historically drives BTC upwardsalthough not following a fixed rule: the general correlative trend exists, but it is broken every so often, as between September and December 2016, or from the end of 2018 to mid -2019.

In a picturesque way, Livingston comments that the war planes on the Ormuz Strait fired a bullet against the bassist thesis for the price of Bitcoin.

The reason is as follows: the United States and other powers with interests in a global geopolitical conflict They would print Fíat money to finance the war and the national defense of their territories. Although the author speaks specifically of the recent arms escalation that involved only three countries and seems in full setback, his analysis can be extrapolated to a monetary behavior of happening a global conflict, such as a 3rd. World War.

The disruption of supplies chains that globalize the economy through a war could generate energy chaos in a fatal scenario. «Energy inflation is spark; The ‘monetary gasoline’ is the explosion »for Bitcoin, says Livingston.

When there is a marked inflation in energy prices due to wars and “black swans”, the world monetary base tends, through the printing of money, to grow to pay for rising costs. Consequently, the Global Sube supply and the Fíat Group is devalued.

The described process can be summarized as follows:

Hito bélico global ---> Sube el precio del petróleo y la energía ---> Crece la oferta monetaria M2 para financiar guerra y costes energéticos---> Aumenta el ritmo de devaluación del grupo fíat --->  Se encuentra atractivo a bitcoin como reserva de valor ---> BTC tiende al alza. 

There is evidence that supply M2 increases in moments of war. In the Gulf War, the M2 increased by 5%. In the 2003 Iraq war, during which the balance of the United States Federal Reserve (FED) would have increased by 400 billion dollars. In 2020-2021, during the COVID, the mass stimuli fired the M2 and Bitcoin responded from $ 10,000 to $ 69,000 in one of the most remembered bulls. While Covid was not a warhe Supply M2 also increased by being considered a “black swan.”

Bitcoin and World War III

Who houses a healthy ability to rationally care for your interests wants to have money (Fíat) that is being devalued by nations to invest in defense and pay inflated prices of energy? It is not strange then that Bitcoin becomes increasingly attractive, despite its short history, as a protection asset during war conflicts: because it cannot be issued, because Its monetary policy does not change during a global temporary psychosis.

On the contrary, when the Global M2 offer increases, whether by war or any other reason, and the Fíat Group is devalued, Bitcoin tends to rise and increases its attraction as a refuge.

Of course, predictable factors apart from M2 Global Supply They influence Bitcoin’s behavior: institutional adoption, speculation, regulatory developments and market dynamics.

Unpredictable factors during a world armed conflict could also influence it and inflation: interruptions in industrial production and technological infrastructure, exceptional regulatory pressures during emergency states, attempts to confiscations to finance public expenses, decrease in Internet access, inter alia.

In addition, Bitcoin has only lived small -scale wars, Never a global conflict of several years that can exert excessive pressure on its market cycles and on the world economy. It is difficult, then, to know if Bitcoin would shine in a World War III as an active refuge.

However, its fundamental properties and recent historical precedents make them believe that yes, that has the potential to be an economic shelter Amid war storms, especially if cryptoactive education advances in line with considering it as what it is: an active refuge, and not a speculative good.