Is Bitcoin slowly becoming a high-beta version of Nasdaq?

[doffiaicial]

 I’ve been tracking price action since 2020 and something keeps standing out; Bitcoin moves almost like a “high-beta tech index.”
Whenever macro sentiment turns risk-off, BTC reacts instantly; sometimes even before equities.

 Sometimes I wonder if Bitcoin has shifted from being a “hedge narrative” into a “macro risk asset” that amplifies whatever direction tech stocks take.

 One burning question I had been longing  to ask  the board is;
 Is this correlation a permanent structural change, or just the side effect of institutional money treating Bitcoin like another risk asset?
  Would love to hear from enthusiasts who track macro flows.

[retaur]

Bitcoin's annual returns since 2021 imo haven't been as strong as tech stocks. I could be wrong on that but I thought the big four went from being worth about $1tr each back in 2021 to about $3tr each now. In that same time, bitcoin went from about $1.5tr to $3tr and that's not even accounting for the likes of Nvidia that have had a huge upswing since 2020 (they weren't even considered big 4 afaik).

Bitcoin tracking emerging technologies would make a lot of sense - I'm not sure it's happening though.

[d5000]

Is this correlation a permanent structural change, or just the side effect of institutional money treating Bitcoin like another risk asset?

Without being an "enthusiast tracking macro flows", my theory is that it is a side effect, and that it will be temporary.

The NASDAQ correlation can be seen since 2020/21 approximately. There were only a few Bitcoin ETFs at that time (since 2021) and none in the US (although there were futures since 2017/18), but I believe individual investors were starting to exposing themselves to Bitcoin at that time. The 2017/18 bubble was probably mostly "retailer" driven, while in the 2021 bubble TradFi capital began to play a major role. For example, the Tesla investment was in these years, and it may also have been "connected" Bitcoin with the US "tech" sector.

But even then, it was never a continuous correlation. This chart shows the correlation with the S&P 500, it should be very close to the Nasdaq-100 correlation. We see that there were long phases of correlation in 2020-22 and 2024/25, but 2023 was completely uncorrelated, and there were always "correlation dips", the last one is just occurring now, since late October 2025.

Here's the chart from today:



My view is that the reason is a loose association of Bitcoin with "tech", and a self-fulfilling prophecy as this correlation is now known. But once the "big capital" understands Bitcoin and its true utility as a censorship resistant global currency better, this correlation will largely disappear again.

[abhiseshakana]

I’ve been tracking price action since 2020 and something keeps standing out; Bitcoin moves almost like a “high-beta tech index.”
Whenever macro sentiment turns risk-off, BTC reacts instantly; sometimes even before equities.

 Sometimes I wonder if Bitcoin has shifted from being a “hedge narrative” into a “macro risk asset” that amplifies whatever direction tech stocks take.

 One burning question I had been longing  to ask  the board is;
 Is this correlation a permanent structural change, or just the side effect of institutional money treating Bitcoin like another risk asset?
  Would love to hear from enthusiasts who track macro flows.

In my opinion, the high correlation isn't a permanent structural change but rather reflects the price action pattern since 2020, which is the effect of market participant composition rather than Bitcoin's long-term fundamentals. So, it's not Bitcoin itself that's changing, but rather who's dominating order flow. As a new, immature asset, Bitcoin's ownership structure overreacts to global liquidity cycles (gold also experiences this), plus the inflow/outflow of ETFs mechanically integrates BTC with the stock market.

The downward movements of Bitcoin and tech stocks have different causes. Because Bitcoin doesn't depend on earnings, cash flow, or real interest rates, Bitcoin's decline is due to deleveraging and tightening global liquidity, which drives riskier assets. I also observed that when stress arises in the fiat system, the correlation weakens, suggesting that Bitcoin is a hedge against monetary system failure, not a safe haven for short-term macro volatility.
Similar to the historical record of gold, the yen, and treasuries, which were initially treated by institutions as high-beta plays, then as adoption increased, their profiles rose and the correlation weakened. If a structural change were permanent, the weakening trend wouldn't be visible. Therefore, as the market matures, the correlation gradually decreases.

Don't forget that Bitcoin is a monetary asset that has passed through a speculative phase and is currently in a transition phase (liquidity asset phase) to a monetary phase, with tech-like behavior due to institutional entry and the adoption of a risk-on/risk-off framework. As institutional adoption expands, the market will deepen, settlement utility will increase, correlation to tech equity will become more irrelevant, and it will behave like a purely monetary asset.

Is this correlation a permanent structural change, or just the side effect of institutional money treating Bitcoin like another risk asset?

Without being an "enthusiast tracking macro flows", my theory is that it is a side effect, and that it will be temporary.

The NASDAQ correlation can be seen since 2020/21 approximately. There were only a few Bitcoin ETFs at that time (since 2021) and none in the US (although there were futures since 2017/18), but I believe individual investors were starting to exposing themselves to Bitcoin at that time. The 2017/18 bubble was probably mostly "retailer" driven, while in the 2021 bubble TradFi capital began to play a major role. For example, the Tesla investment was in these years, and it may also have been "connected" Bitcoin with the US "tech" sector.

But even then, it was never a continuous correlation. This chart shows the correlation with the S&P 500, it should be very close to the Nasdaq-100 correlation. We see that there were long phases of correlation in 2020-22 and 2024/25, but 2023 was completely uncorrelated, and there were always "correlation dips", the last one is just occurring now, since late October 2025.

Here's the chart from today:



My view is that the reason is a loose association of Bitcoin with "tech", and a self-fulfilling prophecy as this correlation is now known. But once the "big capital" understands Bitcoin and its true utility as a censorship resistant global currency better, this correlation will largely disappear again.

May I add, The BTC-Nasdaq correlation increase since 2020-2021 is not simply a loose association, but a change in market structure. When institutions entered, Bitcoin was treated as a high-beta tech stock and, using a portfolio risk budgeting framework, VAR constraints, and liquidity considerations, Bitcoin ultimately followed tech's behavior, not just a perceptual association. The correlation dips do not indicate a loss of correlation; rather, Bitcoin reacts to shocks differently than the Nasdaq, and Bitcoin has a unique cycle not seen in tech stocks, namely halvings (volatility and rallies often out of sync with the Nasdaq). I read your S&P/Nasdaq chart as correlation-regime switching. The correlation will decline in the long term, but not because institutional understanding has changed, but because Bitcoin is shifting from a financialized tech asset to a global monetary-neutral asset. Going forward, Bitcoin will be more linked to the global macro-monetary regime, not tech stock sentiment.

I think your premise is a bit too optimistic. Institutions will continue to view Bitcoin as a liquid alternative asset, a macro-risk-sensitive instrument, and an inflation hedge only during certain regimes, with volatility. vehicle with a technical operational framework of risk-on / risk-off, leverage cycle, liquidity cycle and tech-driven investor base so that the correlation between Bitcoin and Nasdaq will not be completely disapeared.

[hugeblack]

Over the past few years, such analyses have emerged linking Bitcoin to stocks, bonds, or the US market, but they are all not based on in-depth analysis, but rather an attempt to link price changes with the price of Bitcoin. The truth is that there is no direct link between Bitcoin and the stock market or Nasdaq.

[Nightwalker(NW)]

Over the past few years, such analyses have emerged linking Bitcoin to stocks, bonds, or the US market, but they are all not based on in-depth analysis, but rather an attempt to link price changes with the price of Bitcoin. The truth is that there is no direct link between Bitcoin and the stock market or Nasdaq.

TBH, people are always thinking they are being linked maybe could be that they are both tradable?
Since bitcoin are traded on the stock so the possibility or submerging them aren't that too far from it.
However, lot of brokers and other markets do list bitcoin on their platform given bitcoin to strong momentum to wax strongly above even some other assets out there.

[d5000]

I also observed that when stress arises in the fiat system, the correlation weakens, suggesting that Bitcoin is a hedge against monetary system failure, not a safe haven for short-term macro volatility.

Thanks for going a bit more into depth. But this sentence was a bit surprising for me, as for example in the Covid crisis Bitcoin's correlation to the stock markets strengthened (it seems to me).  Just during the last year, e.g. during the tariff wars Trump vs. the World, the correlation was also high. Or do you mean another type of "stress"?

May I add, The BTC-Nasdaq correlation increase since 2020-2021 is not simply a loose association, but a change in market structure.

Agree partly, the "loose association" was my interpretation of the reason for the behavior just of the new type of (mainly institutional) investors that entered the market in the early 2020s, but the structure definitely changed.

The reaction to Fed interest rate changes in the US is another slightly different example how this behavior could work. For Bitcoin's fundamentals, in my opinion these interest rate changes are largely irrelevant. A single new law in India or China loosening Bitcoin restrictions would have far more effect, for example. But they could be important in the short- to mid-term, because institutions try to predict other institutions' behaviour. Even if a few are affected by liquidity changes, their exposition to Bitcoin tends to be quite low (exception: Saylor and friends), but the suspicion that "some" institutions may be affected could trigger a chain reaction of "preventive" Bitcoin/Bitcoin-ETF purchases or sales.

The correlation will decline in the long term, but not because institutional understanding has changed, but because Bitcoin is shifting from a financialized tech asset to a global monetary-neutral asset. [...] I think your premise is a bit too optimistic. Institutions will continue to view Bitcoin as a liquid alternative asset, a macro-risk-sensitive instrument, and an inflation hedge only during certain regimes, with volatility.

I don't expect the change in the "correlation regime" to occur very soon. We have had now about 5 years with the new market structure, and that behavior may continue for other 5 years more.

However, I think it won't last more than 10 years more, as I expect that Bitcoin will relatively soon (in the next decade, I think) face a crossroads: the pure "risk asset" scheme with strong boom-bust cycles will not work anymore as in the past, simply because the market begins to saturate for this kind of asset. It's what I wrote here that already is occurring (imo) in the altcoin market: particularly if the harsh crashes continue, there will be too many "losers" (those that panic sold at a loss in a bear market) exiting the market for a long time weakening the potential for coming bull seasons.

This should lead investors exposed to Bitcoin, once they detect this problem, to the need to investigate better fundamental indicators about Bitcoin's long term potential as a "monetary" asset (e.g. based on studies like Chainalysis Crypto Adoption Index). And could also let institutions to change their communicative behavior to strenghten less speculative use cases (SoV and "currency"). For example, it's possible that Saylor will no longer talk about the phenomenal returns in a single year you could achieve investing in Bitcoin and the "need" for volatility, but instead about the need to soften volatility and create regulatory certainty about the "Bitcoin as a currency" usage.

That could be basically also what you meant with the shift to a monetary neutral asset. I only think this change could occur a bit sooner as in the "long term", just because of the fear of market saturation.

[Hispo]

I’ve been tracking price action since 2020 and something keeps standing out; Bitcoin moves almost like a “high-beta tech index.”
Whenever macro sentiment turns risk-off, BTC reacts instantly; sometimes even before equities.

 Sometimes I wonder if Bitcoin has shifted from being a “hedge narrative” into a “macro risk asset” that amplifies whatever direction tech stocks take.

 One burning question I had been longing  to ask  the board is;
 Is this correlation a permanent structural change, or just the side effect of institutional money treating Bitcoin like another risk asset?
  Would love to hear from enthusiasts who track macro flows.

All that correlation is likely a consequence of traditional markets giving attention to Bitcoin and institutional money starting to dive into the world of Bitcoin, the more traditional and institutional money gets into Bitcoin, more correlation with wall street will exist between decentralized assets and traditional assets.

This is a trend which is likely here to stay, in the same manner one could expect hedge funds and smart money to continue to invest in Bitcoin for years to come, wishing to profit off scarcity and speculation.

[STT]

Cant really lump these two together, they are different beasts.  What you are referring to is really risk on vs risk off and in that respect the two assets are correlated.
  We have a weaker dollar environment which helps risk on assets but it doesn't mean all performance will be the same regardless of dynamics to that particular growth asset.

 Bitcoin is closest to a commodity type market asset rather then a stock or company, commodities are very hard to judge as they can spike or drop 40% quickly.  It is about supply vs demand determining market price, however to muddy the waters far more is all these speculators and sentiment to BTC has lapsed from its highs and might stay that way for a while yet.

[abhiseshakana]

I also observed that when stress arises in the fiat system, the correlation weakens, suggesting that Bitcoin is a hedge against monetary system failure, not a safe haven for short-term macro volatility.

Thanks for going a bit more into depth. But this sentence was a bit surprising for me, as for example in the Covid crisis Bitcoin's correlation to the stock markets strengthened (it seems to me).  Just during the last year, e.g. during the tariff wars Trump vs. the World, the correlation was also high. Or do you mean another type of "stress"?

I apologize for the lack of detail. I differentiate stress into two categories:

• Regular market panic (risk-off stress), for example, the COVID-19 crash, global tariff/trade shocks, deleveraging events, and ETF-driven flows. In these conditions, investors sell speculative assets to seek liquidity, correlations between assets increase systemically, and Bitcoin is treated as a high-beta tech asset by institutions. Indeed, correlations increase.
• Monetary system stress is not the usual risk-off event (loss of confidence in the fiat banking system) and the stress I'm referring to. In these conditions, confidence in fiat weakens, central banks implement emergency easing, sovereign debt risks increase, and indications of tightening capital controls emerge. In these stress periods, Bitcoin often breaks away from the Nasdaq correlation, moving steadily higher when equities do not, and behaving like a non-sovereign monetary hedge. For example, when SVB, Credit Suisse, and Signature Bank collapsed, I observed the S&P 500 moving sideways, Bitcoin rising, and the correlation dropping sharply. Then, from October to now, the correlation began to decline again when treasury yields failed to stabilize, discussions about sovereign debt restructuring intensified, and the Fed's pivot expectations became more aggressive. Under these conditions, institutions viewed Bitcoin not as a technology stock, but as an option against the failure of the fiat regime.

Can we align definitions and perceptions to maintain a consistent discussion?

Agree partly, the "loose association" was my interpretation of the reason for the behavior just of the new type of (mainly institutional) investors that entered the market in the early 2020s, but the structure definitely changed.

The reaction to Fed interest rate changes in the US is another slightly different example how this behavior could work. For Bitcoin's fundamentals, in my opinion these interest rate changes are largely irrelevant. A single new law in India or China loosening Bitcoin restrictions would have far more effect, for example. But they could be important in the short- to mid-term, because institutions try to predict other institutions' behaviour. Even if a few are affected by liquidity changes, their exposition to Bitcoin tends to be quite low (exception: Saylor and friends), but the suspicion that "some" institutions may be affected could trigger a chain reaction of "preventive" Bitcoin/Bitcoin-ETF purchases or sales.

I agree with your point, we can actually complement each other. Since 2020, Bitcoin has been traded not only by speculative retail investors but also by spot/futures Bitcoin ETFs, institutional derivatives desks, multi-asset macro funds, and high-frequency market makers. These groups naturally adopt traditional market behavior patterns such as Fed-based probability positioning, volatility-based hedging, cross-asset risk targeting, and correlation arbitrage. This is what changes the market structure because market participants have changed. Correlation increases when the "risk-on/risk-off" regime is active, and correlation decreases when shocks originate from the Bitcoin supply side or extreme monetary shocks.

May I note that the reaction to the Fed reflects market mechanisms, not BTC's fundamentals? Behavioral chain reactions always arise from the effects of the Fed, and this response is not due to institutional concern for Bitcoin's fundamentals, but rather to the need to predict other institutions whose technical actions include pre-positioning, deleveraging, liquidity tightening, and risk parity rebalancing, all of which cause Bitcoin to move more like a liquidity-sensitive macro asset.

In fact; The correlation increases during times of liquidity stress (the effect of institutional adoption) and collapses during times of monetary system stress (revealing Bitcoin's true function as an anti-fragile asset against fiat failure). Therefore, the correlation is not a permanent effect of the current market structure mechanism and will change as institutions' understanding of Bitcoin's utility matures.

I don't expect the change in the "correlation regime" to occur very soon. We have had now about 5 years with the new market structure, and that behavior may continue for other 5 years more.

However, I think it won't last more than 10 years more, as I expect that Bitcoin will relatively soon (in the next decade, I think) face a crossroads: the pure "risk asset" scheme with strong boom-bust cycles will not work anymore as in the past, simply because the market begins to saturate for this kind of asset. It's what I wrote here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5567643.msg66143969#msg66143969) that already is occurring (imo) in the altcoin market: particularly if the harsh crashes continue, there will be too many "losers" (those that panic sold at a loss in a bear market) exiting the market for a long time weakening the potential for coming bull seasons.

This should lead investors exposed to Bitcoin, once they detect this problem, to the need to investigate better fundamental indicators about Bitcoin's long term potential as a "monetary" asset (e.g. based on studies like Chainalysis Crypto Adoption Index). And could also let institutions to change their communicative behavior to strenghten less speculative use cases (SoV and "currency"). For example, it's possible that Saylor will no longer talk about the phenomenal returns in a single year you could achieve investing in Bitcoin and the "need" for volatility, but instead about the need to soften volatility and create regulatory certainty about the "Bitcoin as a currency" usage.

That could be basically also what you meant with the shift to a monetary neutral asset. I only think this change could occur a bit sooner as in the "long term", just because of the fear of market saturation.

From your explanation, I conclude that our main difference lies in the mechanism of the correlation regime change. If you read the correlation change, it will decrease because the market will become saturated, many retail investors will lose, and then investors will be "forced" to view Bitcoin again as a long-term monetary asset.

In my reading, the correlation change occurs due to a functional change. The boom-boost correction is not the primary factor that reduces the long-term correlation, but rather due to Bitcoin's shift from a risk-on tech to a neutral monetary asset. Price decisions are no longer dominated by Wall Street liquidity flows, the main market-driving shock shifts from US macro to global monetary stress, geopolitics, hedging in developing countries, de-dollarization, and transnational adoption.

I agree that regime change doesn't happen quickly, but the reasons are different. You mentioned 5-10 years because the market is saturated and investors will seek new fundamentals. I mentioned 5-10 years because institutions still treat Bitcoin as a financial asset (ETFs, trading desks, risk models), US policy rates still play a significant role in all risk assets, global monetary adoption has not yet reached critical mass, and fundamentally, Bitcoin is still in the financialization phase, not yet in the monetization phase.

Retail demand saturation will not affect Bitcoin in the same way as altcoins because Bitcoin does not rely on new retail inflows to rise due to its different buyer structure (sovereign wealth funds, corporate treasuries, emerging market hedge funds, high-inflation economies, long-term custodial products, and BTC-as-collateral infrastructure).

[d5000]

Monetary system stress is not the usual risk-off event (loss of confidence in the fiat banking system) and the stress I'm referring to. In these conditions, confidence in fiat weakens, central banks implement emergency easing, sovereign debt risks increase, and indications of tightening capital controls emerge. In these stress periods, Bitcoin often breaks away from the Nasdaq correlation, moving steadily higher when equities do not, and behaving like a non-sovereign monetary hedge.

Thanks for clarification! It's still surprising me a bit that Bitcoin already could be seen as a "hedging" tool (in the short term, it seems), but I'd have to look more into detail to be able to question that assumption.

Correlation increases when the "risk-on/risk-off" regime is active, and correlation decreases when shocks originate from the Bitcoin supply side or extreme monetary shocks.

Agree.

May I note that the reaction to the Fed reflects market mechanisms, not BTC's fundamentals?

Yes, maybe my point was misleading but I actually fully agree with you here (I meant that the reactions were still "not" based on fundamentals). A possible "fundamentals-based regime" for me is still something in a very early stage, and it is not clear for me how the Fed interest rate changes could fit into that scenario. Interest rates can affect retailers in a different way than institutions regarding their investment potential. While institutions in a "monetary policy loosening" may have more incentives to invest in potentially reliable stores of value and thus in Bitcoin, retailers typically are the "losers" of such scenarios and have less money to invest, above all because loosening typically indicates high unemployment and low salaries.

From your explanation, I conclude that our main difference lies in the mechanism of the correlation regime change. If you read the correlation change, it will decrease because the market will become saturated, many retail investors will lose, and then investors will be "forced" to view Bitcoin again as a long-term monetary asset.

Approximately -- but I see this as a "danger" operating in the background. For me the "loser" phenomenon is also not necessarily limited to retailers. There seem to have been newly formed Bitcoin treasury companies who were already surprised by the "crash" below 100k and had to sell some BTC (or ETFs).

One of the ideas that led to this conclusion for me is just the (Micro)strategy business model. Currently, it benefits a lot from Bitcoin's volatility. But eventually Strategy will have to re-pay debt. It doesn't look that Bitcoin's price evolution can justify a high premium, this premium was accepted by investors (afaik) both due to excessive expectations on the US strategic reserve in early 2025, and due to some "wave-riding" strategies by companies needing volatility. However, with volatility declining, my take is that if Strategy doesn't want to risk to get into difficulties, it must re-configure its business model in a way it attracts investors also in low-volatility phases. This would mean changing the whole communication strategy, not talking about the tens of millions of USD per BTC, but instead about solidity and related qualities. "Influencers" like Saylor imo do still move the market, and thus they could contribute to a further "solidification" of the Bitcoin price evolution.

The loss of correlation with Nasdaq will occur naturally once that happens, in my opinion.

In my reading, the correlation change occurs due to a functional change. The boom-boost correction is not the primary factor that reduces the long-term correlation, but rather due to Bitcoin's shift from a risk-on tech to a neutral monetary asset. Price decisions are no longer dominated by Wall Street liquidity flows, the main market-driving shock shifts from US macro to global monetary stress, geopolitics, hedging in developing countries, de-dollarization, and transnational adoption.

I can agree with this, afaik indeed both ideas can be complementary. I think you're probably correct that Bitcoin adoption fundamentals also after the "correlation regime change" may only slowly become the main driver on Bitcoin's price, and that the external factors you mentioned would play a role for a long time.

[Fortify]

I’ve been tracking price action since 2020 and something keeps standing out; Bitcoin moves almost like a “high-beta tech index.”
Whenever macro sentiment turns risk-off, BTC reacts instantly; sometimes even before equities.

 Sometimes I wonder if Bitcoin has shifted from being a “hedge narrative” into a “macro risk asset” that amplifies whatever direction tech stocks take.

 One burning question I had been longing  to ask  the board is;
 Is this correlation a permanent structural change, or just the side effect of institutional money treating Bitcoin like another risk asset?
  Would love to hear from enthusiasts who track macro flows.

How is Bitcoin, a single asset or entity, comparable to an index of many of the biggest companies in the world? It is not. If you said Bitcoin and altcoins, then maybe that might have made more sense. An index fund consisting of many companies is a lot more diversified and less vulnerable to shocks than a single asset would be. In my experience Bitcoin has followed stock markets down when there is any turbulence, but we've had relatively few corrections in the last couple years, you saw deeper drops when things like Covid and the Russian invasion of Ukraine happened, however it bounced back relatively quick in tandem with the stock market. There is actually a lot of correlation between the stock market and alternative assets in general.

[doffiaicial]

This should lead investors exposed to Bitcoin, once they detect this problem, to the need to investigate better fundamental indicators about Bitcoin's long term potential as a "monetary" asset (e.g. based on studies like Chainalysis Crypto Adoption Index).

   As a newbie, I feel so encouraged and feel the drive to study more so as to give in depth explanations  such as this in the future.
   As I was reading through your reply, I came across something that caught my attention. "The Chainalysis Crypto Adoption Index" . out of so much curiosity, I decided to study more on it. So much so to join knowledge together and get corrections to what I learnt from it.

 Here's a link I got from a research source:
  https://share.google/mHjd3PtU5804o61SZ

  I found out that there is an interactive map that enables you to see where every country ranks in the 2025 Chainalysis Global crypto adoption index.

 Below is the interactive map;
   
  I would love to have more explanations on this.Thank you

 

[jaberwock]

Yeah, we are losing the hedge property of bitcoin which is a real big loss for all of us. Because, to profit along with traditional economics, we have lots of opportunities in the name of stocks and bonds but what we really need is, when traditional factors (which impact the growth of an economy) failing, we still need opportunity to grow or at least to lock our wealth against from basic inflation to failure of entire economy of a country. Even gold is already there, bitcoin as a digital format might act as more powerful hedge but investors are still not mature enough to treat bitcoin as a real hedge.

I am really hopeful about people start realizing the potential of bitcoin. Only when people truly understand the fundamentals of bitcoin, they will start adapt decentralization and start giving importance to their privacy and from that point, bitcoin will start working as hedge until then it would be another ETF based stock for investors.

[Faisal2202]

One burning question I had been longing  to ask  the board is;
Is this correlation a permanent structural change, or just the side effect of institutional money treating Bitcoin like another risk asset?
Would love to hear from enthusiasts who track macro flows.

When we look at things like how they were before (obviously if we have a good memory) then we will realize it seems like a plan that bitcoin was following how first the fed rates starts to impact it which is not something that is made up it has real impact, then the cpi data, then other data now some people are talking about QT and QE as well.

So I don't think the hedge narrative has ended, but I think it has not been so dominant right now. And right now, due to institutional investors, the adoption of BTC has made it vulnerable to factors that it wasn't before.