Analysts argue Bitcoin’s trajectory is increasingly diverging from the precious-metals rally, challenging the assumption that “stores of value” move in sync. Bitcoin is described as down roughly 30% from its October peak while gold and silver delivered outsized year-to-date gains, forcing traders and treasuries to rethink correlation-based allocation and risk models.
The divergence is visible across prices, ratios, and sentiment gauges. Gold is near $4,533 per ounce with roughly a 70% year-to-date gain, silver is around $77 per ounce with about 143% gains, while Bitcoin fell from about $125,100 on October 5 to roughly $87,600, a near 30% drawdown, with the Bitcoin-to-gold ratio around 19.29. Sentiment also splits sharply: the Gold Fear & Greed Index is cited at 79 (“Greed”) while the Crypto Fear & Greed Index is cited at 24 (“Extreme Fear”).
Surprisingly unpopular opinion: Gold and silver do not need to slow down for Bitcoin to do well.
Bitcoiners thinking that needs to happen, are low T, and don't understand any of these assets.
— _Checkmate 🟠🔑⚡☢️🛢️ (@_Checkmatey_) December 28, 2025
Why the correlation narrative is being challenged
The Bitcoin-to-gold ratio is used as a simple relative performance gauge, comparing the dollar value of one bitcoin to one ounce of gold. Analysts note that a historically tighter correlation from November 2022 to November 2024 loosened in 2025, and recent observations put Bitcoin closer to risk-on assets such as the Nasdaq 100 than to precious metals. This shift matters operationally because it changes how “macro hedges” are modeled and how cross-asset rotations are timed.
Analysts James Check of Glassnode and macroeconomist Lyn Alden, who frame the relationship as coexistence rather than a dependency. James Check called the idea that Bitcoin needs metals to slow down a “surprisingly unpopular opinion,” while Lyn Alden emphasized coexistence rather than direct competition. Forecasts are not uniform: some expect Bitcoin gains into 2026 and one voice described a “decade-long bull run,” while others still argue gold strength could lift Bitcoin in tandem through spillover effects.
What changes for allocation, execution, and monitoring
The divergence is also explained through different fundamental drivers. Gold and silver strength is attributed to inflation concerns, a weaker U.S. dollar, geopolitical tensions, central-bank purchases, and trade-policy uncertainty, while Bitcoin’s narrative is tied to digital scarcity via a capped 21 million supply, halving cycles, network effects, technological upgrades, and steady institutional adoption. The takeaway is that the demand mechanisms are not the same, so the assets can decouple for extended periods.
For product and treasury teams, the operational implications follow directly from that premise. Correlation matrices and VaR frameworks are described as needing to treat metals and Bitcoin as largely independent under current conditions, rather than forcing synchronized stress assumptions. Execution and custody also become more central as institutions scale exposure. Wallet compatibility, custody permissions, and signing workflows are presented as practical constraints that determine how quickly desks can shift between metals exposure and crypto exposure. Liquidity assumptions should also adapt. If Bitcoin is behaving more like a risk asset, market-impact models and slippage expectations should reflect that sensitivity rather than borrowing assumptions from traditional metals markets.
A concise surveillance principle captures the risk-management posture. “Treat correlation as a state variable, not a constant,” presents as the guiding idea for monitoring and model calibration. In this framing, the market is increasingly separating gold, silver, and Bitcoin into assets driven by different stress regimes and adoption paths. The core conclusion is that Bitcoin is not portrayed as needing metals to “cool off” before it can move higher.
