As I said, "the long term trends are pretty obviously correlated." But I think you're reaching a bit trying to attribute causation for stock market moves and suggesting on that basis alone there is no relationship. Pulling out one short term chart really doesn't tell the story. Those moves aren't necessarily relevant to money flow on 1-month or 1-year charts, and they don't speak to the idea of overall money flow into risky assets. Risky assets include overinflated stocks and cryptocurrency alike.
If I had enough time I could pull out lots of shorter timeframe charts showing that the turning points don't match and then digging through the news reports at the time to work out what caused them.
See the bolded statement above. If two markets don't react to one another to the day, it doesn't follow that they are broadly uncorrelated. Furthermore, it's pretty silly to try to attribute every move to news. That's just not how markets work. There's nothing funnier than watching news media trying to explain price action.
What I'm trying to say is the fact that two things are in a long-term bull trend doesn't make them correlated.
Sure it does. Correlation just measures how close two things are to having a linear relationship. Divergence over time would break the correlation, but that hasn't happened. We're not talking about causation. What I'm suggesting is they both might react to macroeconomic conditions and catalysts (resulting in positive correlation but not causation).
Markets are very complex, interconnected organisms. I'm talking about money flow on a macro, global level. You're talking about news and matching charts up with short term candles. What I'm talking about is a lot more abstract than that.
The banking crisis was equally the driver behind the creation of Bitcoin but its increasing value wasn't driven by pension funds looking for a better return than US Treasuries were giving. Equally the day to day fundamentals that affect the market's perception of the likely return in investing Amazon or Walmart has no bearing on the market's perception of the future value of Bitcoin. It lives in a very different ecosystem and just putting up two charts that go from bottom left to top right over a very long period of time doesn't prove a correlation.
In a technical sense, I'm fairly sure it does. It's also more than just the long term trend; there are lots of shared consolidation periods. Anyway, a correlation isn't about causality. I'm not saying "the market's perception of the likely return in investing Amazon or Walmart affects the market's perception of the future value of Bitcoin." That's completely absurd.
What I'm saying is stocks don't necessarily exist in a vacuum. If Bitcoin has a different ecosystem, that doesn't mean it isn't approached as a speculative investment, much the same as tech stocks. That's why in a global crash scenario, I'm skeptical of the idea that Bitcoin will prosper. Economic crashes generally mean a flight
out of risky assets. That's what I'm talking about. From that view, you might expect Bitcoin and stocks to have some level of positive correlation in either an exuberant market (like recent years) or a crashing market.
