Originally published November 6, 2026, at 23:04:02 UTC+8. Based on reporting by Cathy of 白话区块链, republished by TechFlow.
Bitcoin’s correlation with gold or technology stocks measures how their returns move together over a specified period. It does not establish a permanent identity for Bitcoin—or guarantee how it will behave during the next sell-off.
That distinction is central to the source article’s account of November 2026. A late-August analysis from Grayscale appeared to show Bitcoin moving closer to gold and further from technology stocks. By early November, Bitcoin was falling alongside the Nasdaq again.
What the correlation readings actually measured
In a February 9 report, Grayscale research head Zach Pandl said Bitcoin’s price movements had been highly correlated with early-stage, highly valued software stocks for at least the preceding 12 months. Bitcoin had fallen to about $60,000, roughly half its October 2025 record of $126,000. Pandl interpreted the retreat primarily as broader de-risking in growth portfolios, rather than a problem unique to crypto.
By late August, his analysis showed a different pattern. Over the preceding three months, Bitcoin’s correlation with gold had risen from close to zero at the beginning of the year to above 50%, while its correlation with the Nasdaq 100 had declined from more than 60% to about 33%.
The source linked that shift to concerns about U.S. federal debt, which it reported had surpassed $40 trillion in August, and interest in scarce assets. The market interpretation was that Bitcoin was beginning to behave more like gold.
But the relationship shifted again. On October 21, K33 Research reported that Bitcoin and the Nasdaq had delivered almost identical two-week returns. Bitcoin’s 28-day volatility had fallen to 1.2%, near its lowest level of the year. K33 research head Vetle Lunde cautioned that recent relative resilience did not establish genuine decoupling from equities, and that compressed volatility was often followed by an expansion.
These observations used different measurement windows. The source describes Grayscale’s correlation window as 90 days, while K33 examined two-week returns. They are not interchangeable readings of a fixed characteristic. A changing window can produce a changing conclusion.
The November sell-off put the gold narrative under pressure
On November 4, the Dow rose 3% and Bitcoin rebounded to approximately $81,000. BTSE chief operating officer Jeff Mei attributed the improved mood to expectations that the Iran conflict might end.
The following day, markets reversed. According to Reuters reporting cited in the article, investors worried that Democratic control of Congress would slow data-center construction. Chip stocks extended their decline into a second day.
On November 5:
- The Nasdaq Composite fell 5.52%, and the Dow lost 1,833 points.
- A semiconductor ETF fell more than 12%, its worst performance since March 2020.
- Nvidia declined 9.26%, while AMD dropped 17.26%, despite AMD reporting results above expectations and nearly doubling data-center revenue.
- All 11 S&P 500 sectors fell.
CoinGecko data cited in the source showed Bitcoin falling from about $80,300 to an intraday low near $75,200, before closing around $76,000—approximately 5.5% below the previous day. More than $1 billion in positions were liquidated within 24 hours, almost 90% of them longs, affecting approximately 210,000 traders.
For the comparison most relevant to the “digital gold” argument, the Nasdaq 100 fell roughly 6.5%, Bitcoin lost about 5.5%, and gold gained 0.9%.
ETF flows offered a possible transmission channel
The article attributes Bitcoin’s decline to technology-stock stress spreading through institutional portfolios, spot Bitcoin ETF selling and leveraged liquidations. That is its explanation of the sequence, rather than something a correlation reading alone can establish.
Farside figures cited in the report showed approximately $1.5 billion in net Bitcoin ETF outflows from October 30 through November 5. October 30 accounted for $643 million, coinciding with another technology-stock sell-off in which Intel fell about 29% after disappointing guidance. November 5 brought more than $430 million in additional outflows.
Before the election, Grayscale had argued that only about 15%–20% of global crypto activity occurred in the United States. The article’s counterpoint is narrower: U.S. market sentiment could still transmit pressure to global Bitcoin prices through ETFs.
Neither Bitcoin nor gold provided consistent shelter
The same year contained episodes that supported very different interpretations.
During the March Iran war, oil rose 63%, according to the source. Inflation concerns lifted Treasury yields and strengthened the dollar, while leveraged investors sold gold to raise cash. Gold recorded its worst monthly performance since October 2008.
Bitcoin, however, rose slightly while major equity indexes, bonds and precious metals declined. Grayscale’s April report, titled “Resilience Amid War,” attributed that performance to earlier clearing of risky Bitcoin positions and Strategy’s purchase of approximately 44,400 BTC during March.
A similar temporary divergence had occurred during the April 2025 tariff shock: Bitcoin gained 13% that month while the Nasdaq was approximately flat. Bernstein analysts called the performance “remarkable,” but the source says the relationship strengthened again after tariffs were paused.
Longer stretches were also uncomfortable for both supposed havens. In an October 23 ranking of 21 asset classes, Creative Planning chief market strategist Charlie Bilello placed Bitcoin and gold last, with year-to-date losses of 7.3% and 7.5%, respectively. Short-term Treasuries had gained 2.9%, while a commodities basket had risen 52.5%. By the November 5 close, Bitcoin’s year-to-date loss had widened to approximately 13%.
Bilello said no year since 2011 had previously seen Bitcoin and gold occupy the bottom two positions together. Gold itself had fallen from a January record near $5,600 to approximately $4,095 on November 5, a drawdown of about 27%.
Historical returns are not a forecast model
The source also presents the longer-term case. Bilello’s figures put Bitcoin’s annualized return since 2011 at 120.6%, compared with 6.3% for gold. Those are historical results, not estimates of what either asset will return next.
Forward-looking assumptions require a separate reading. In October, JPMorgan included Bitcoin in its long-term capital-market assumptions for the first time, assigning it a baseline annualized return of 10% over the following decade, versus 7.5% for U.S. large-cap equities. But it also assumed 55% volatility, noted unstable correlations and did not include Bitcoin in its principal portfolio models.
Pandl’s February formulation preserved the essential uncertainty: Grayscale viewed Bitcoin as both a gold-like store-of-value asset and a technology-like growth asset. He added that if Bitcoin succeeded as a monetary asset over the long term, its price behavior might eventually resemble gold more closely.
The conditional matters. In the source’s 2026 context, Bitcoin had only 17 years of history. A period of gold-like behavior did not establish lasting safe-haven status, just as renewed Nasdaq correlation did not settle its long-term monetary role. The reported evidence supports changing relationships—not a guaranteed destination.