According to the foreign media review, bitcoin performed in 2026 more closely to the U.S. Science and Technology Unit than the “digital gold” that was often mentioned earlier. According to the article, this change has been reflected in relevance, price movements and the performance of the market when under pressure, and the ETF-wide approach to allocating funds was considered to be an important reason.
Increased contact with the navigator
The article mentions that the 30-day rolling correlation of Bitcoin to the NASDAQ 100 index has risen to about 0.80, a high of nearly four years. By contrast, its relevance to gold has clearly receded, once close to zero.
Price performance also reinforces this perception. Bitcoin fell about half as high as in October 2025, about $12.62 million, while gold rose to $5,000 per ounce over the same period and at one point approached $5,600. According to the article, when the risk-averse sentiment in the market rises, funds tend to go to gold rather than bitcoin.
ETF Change of financial behaviour
According to the article, the turning point occurred in January 2024 after the launch of the United States spot bitcoin ETF. ETF allows more institutions to place bitcoin in the same portfolio as the Science and Technology Unit and to be managed by the same system of controls and transactions.
Under this framework, when the risk preference increases, the funds are allocated to both the technology unit and the bitcoin; when the risk preference falls, it may also be simultaneously reduced. According to the article, Bitcoin is increasingly influenced by the Federal Reserve policy expectations, the liquidity environment and the growth stock trading style, and is no longer fully based on the logic of the encrypted market itself.
It's more obvious when you fall.
The article also refers to the view of market institutions that bitcoin is currently characterized by “a stronger and less-than-award decline”. That is to say, bitcoin tends to go down at the same time as the US-based technology plate is under pressure; but when the technology unit bounces, bitcoin does not necessarily rise at the same rate.
However, the article also states that it is not accurate to consider bitcoin exclusively as a substitute for the technology unit. Part of the fall was due to the own impact of the encryption industry, not always driven by the US stock. At the same time, the number of long-term holders continues to increase, which is seen by some as evidence of their continued independent asset identity.
According to the article, the larger question now is whether this high correlation is a long-term structural change brought about by the ETF era, or a phased phenomenon in a tight mobility environment. In the case of the former, there may have been a significant shift in the location of the assets of the Bitcoin; in the case of the latter, the “digital gold” narrative may have been only temporarily silenced.