Bitcoin’s correlation with stocks or gold measures how their returns move together over a selected period. It does not establish a permanent identity—or forecast how Bitcoin will behave during the next sell-off. The measurement window matters: a 90-day correlation and a comparison of two-week returns can tell different stories.
That distinction anchors an article by Cathy of 白话区块链, published by PANews on November 6, 2026, at 21:31 UTC+8. The account below preserves that article’s reporting context and attributed figures; it is not a live market update.
A technology sell-off reaches Bitcoin
According to the article, the Dow rose 3% on November 4 while Bitcoin rebounded to $81,000. BTSE chief operating officer Jeff Mei attributed the broader optimism to expectations that the Iran conflict might end.
The following day brought a reversal. The article cited Reuters reporting that, after Democrats won control of Congress, investors worried about slower data-center construction. Semiconductor shares fell for a second consecutive session.
On November 5:
- The Nasdaq Composite closed down 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 fell 17.26%, despite AMD reporting results above expectations and nearly doubling data-center revenue.
- All 11 S&P 500 sectors declined.
CoinGecko figures cited in the article showed Bitcoin falling from approximately $80,300 to an intraday low near $75,200, before closing around $76,000—down roughly 5.5%. More than $1 billion in positions were liquidated within 24 hours, nearly 90% of them longs, affecting about 210,000 traders.
The article interpreted the transmission mechanism as technology-sector fear spilling into Bitcoin ETF selling, followed by leveraged liquidations that amplified the decline. That is its explanation of the sequence, not a causal relationship established by correlation alone.
Farside data cited in the report put cumulative Bitcoin ETF net outflows at approximately $1.5 billion from October 30 through November 5. Those included $643 million on October 30 and more than $430 million on November 5.
How the “decoupling” story changed
The source traced several changes in Bitcoin’s apparent market role during 2026.
February: growth-stock behavior. Bitcoin fell to around $60,000, roughly half its previous October peak of $126,000. In a February 9 report, Grayscale research head Zach Pandl said Bitcoin had been closely correlated with early-stage, highly valued software stocks for at least the preceding 12 months. He interpreted the drawdown primarily as growth portfolios reducing risk, rather than a cryptocurrency-specific problem.
Late August: a stronger gold relationship. Pandl subsequently reported that Bitcoin’s trailing three-month correlation with gold had risen from near zero early in the year to above 50%, while its correlation with the Nasdaq 100 had fallen from above 60% to approximately 33%. The article placed this shift against concerns over US federal debt, which it reported had exceeded $40 trillion in August.
October: renewed equity alignment. On October 21, K33 Research reported that Bitcoin and the Nasdaq had delivered almost identical two-week returns. Bitcoin’s 28-day volatility reading 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 warned that volatility compression typically precedes an expansion.
November 5: another divergence from gold. The Nasdaq 100 fell approximately 6.5%, Bitcoin lost about 5.5%, and gold rose 0.9%.
The important limitation is that these observations use different windows and measures. Grayscale’s 90-day correlations and K33’s comparison of two-week returns are not interchangeable evidence. Neither establishes a durable relationship on its own.
Gold is not a constant benchmark either
The article also challenged the assumption that gold and Bitcoin must rise when stocks fall.
An October 23 ranking by Creative Planning chief market strategist Charlie Bilello placed Bitcoin and gold last among 21 asset categories, with year-to-date losses of 7.3% and 7.5%, respectively. Short-term US Treasuries had gained 2.9%, while a commodity basket had risen 52.5%. By the November 5 close, Bitcoin’s year-to-date decline had widened to approximately 13%.
Bilello said there had been no year since 2011 in which Bitcoin and gold both occupied the bottom two positions.
Gold itself had fallen from a January record near $5,600 to approximately $4,095 on November 5, a decline of about 27%. The article linked its March weakness to a 63% oil-price surge during the Iran war, inflation concerns, higher Treasury yields, a stronger dollar and leveraged investors selling gold to raise cash.
Bitcoin behaved differently that March. Grayscale’s April report, titled “Resilience in Wartime,” noted that cryptocurrencies had edged higher while major stock indexes, bonds and precious metals declined. Its explanation included earlier reductions in risky Bitcoin positions and Strategy’s purchase of approximately 44,400 BTC during March.
Those contrasting episodes support a narrower conclusion than either “Bitcoin is gold” or “Bitcoin is a technology stock”: its observed behavior can change with market conditions, positioning and flows.
Long-term assumptions are not demonstrated outcomes
Pandl’s February formulation was explicitly conditional: Bitcoin could be both a store-of-value asset and a growth asset. If it succeeded as a monetary asset over the long term, he argued, its price behavior might eventually resemble gold more closely.
The article cited Bilello’s annual-average return figures since 2011—120.6% for Bitcoin and 6.3% for gold—but historical returns do not establish future performance.
It also reported that JPMorgan included Bitcoin in its long-term capital-market assumptions for the first time in October. Its baseline annualized return assumption for the following decade was 10%, compared with 7.5% for US large-cap equities. However, JPMorgan assumed 55% volatility and unstable correlations, and did not include Bitcoin in its main portfolio models. These are model assumptions, not promised returns.
The source proposed watching Bitcoin’s 90-day correlation with the Nasdaq 100, whether spot ETFs record net outflows for more than a week, and Bitcoin’s response to the next large technology-stock move. Those observations can help describe the prevailing market relationship. They cannot, by themselves, turn a changing correlation into a reliable forecast.
Original article by Cathy, 白话区块链, published on PANews — November 6, 2026, 21:31 UTC+8.