top of page

When Gold & Silver Peak First: What History Says About Bitcoin’s Lag - and What 2025 Might Be Setting Up for 2026

Bitcoin has spent much of late-2025 behaving like a confused asset in search of an identity. Gold and silver sprinted to fresh records, while Bitcoin - still widely framed as “digital gold” - peaked near 126,223 USD on October 6, 2025 and slid into the low-90Ks by early 2026.



Gold and silver made new highs into late-December, while Bitcoin finished the year far below its early-October peak. That gap is now one of the most debated questions in macro-crypto: Is Bitcoin actually correlated with precious metals - and if not, what tends to happen when gold and silver lead first?


This essay focuses on three things:


  1. The correlation reality.

  2. What 2025’s decoupling implies.

  3. What would need to change for a “metals-first, Bitcoin-later” rotation into 2026.


1) The core reality: BTC- gold correlation is not stable


The central fact is simple: Bitcoin and gold do not maintain a persistent, reliable correlation; the relationship flips by regime, sometimes positive, sometimes negative, often near zero. This makes “digital gold” more of a narrative framing than a stable input into portfolio construction.


See chart (BTC-gold 30-day rolling correlation):

BTC-gold correlation has meandered over time, with rolling windows spending long stretches near zero and occasionally swinging positive or negative. This aligns with the regime framework many macro researchers use: post-COVID, Bitcoin has frequently behaved less like a pure defensive hedge and more like a high-beta, liquidity-sensitive risk asset.

See chart (BTC correlations vs SPY/QQQ/GLD):


In several windows, Bitcoin’s rolling correlation with equities (SPY, QQQ, IWM) has been higher and more persistent than its correlation with gold (GLD). That pattern supports the view that Bitcoin often inherits liquidity’s bid—not fear’s bid.


2) Pre-COVID and early eras: “digital gold” was never a statistical rule


In earlier Bitcoin history, the “digital gold” narrative was never something you could lean on as a stable pattern. Correlation was noisy, and Bitcoin traded more like an adoption/speculative asset than a macro hedge. Exchange leverage, regulatory shocks, and infrastructure growth dominated price action relative to bullion moves.


See charts (BTC vs gold long history, BTC/gold ratio, 1-year correlation):


Over long horizons, the BTC-gold correlation repeatedly changes sign, and the BTC/gold ratio has gone through wild cycles where either asset can dominate for years. That reframes today’s debate: Bitcoin does not need to move with metals for the thesis to remain plausible; the real question is practical sequencing, when metals lead first, what tends to happen next, and what conditions make Bitcoin “wake up”?


3) 2011: metals peaked, Bitcoin whipsawed, then reset


One early template comes from 2011. Gold and silver were part of a post-crisis metals surge, but Bitcoin did not act as a safe haven; it spiked early, then crashed in a classic infant-market deleveraging pattern. Thin liquidity and concentrated speculative positioning meant Bitcoin’s reset was largely driven by its own microstructure rather than by metals.


See chart (Bitcoin price in 2011): https://charts.bitbo.io/price/2011

See charts (gold and silver 2011):



The lesson is not that Bitcoin “fails” when metals peak. It is that in certain regimes, Bitcoin behaves like risk- and risk can get crushed even while defensive assets are peaking. That “fear bid first, risk resets later” pattern shows up again in a more modern, liquid template.


4) 2020: gold led the fear phase; Bitcoin accelerated later


The most cited modern analog is 2020. Gold surged as pandemic stress and aggressive policy responses hit, while Bitcoin lagged early and then caught the later “risk-on / liquidity” phase. As real yields fell and policy support expanded, Bitcoin transitioned from being sold for liquidity to being bought as a high-beta play on reflation and debasement.


See chart (BTC vs gold, 2019–2021 zoom):


In that window, gold moved first during the acute stress phase, and Bitcoin later outperformed sharply as liquidity and risk appetite returned. It is not a perfect map for 2025-2026, but it supports the idea that metals can lead the fear phase, with Bitcoin stepping in later as the risk-on baton holder.


5) 2025: decoupling becomes the story

Into late-December 2025, the tape is unambiguous. Gold pushed above 4,595 USD/oz (closing near that level as of January 16, 2026) and set fresh records as safe-haven and debasement demand intensified. Silver closed near 89.94 USD/oz (with recent highs above 92–93 USD/oz earlier in January before pullback). Bitcoin remains well below its early-October peak, trading in the mid-90Ks as of January 16, 2026 closing around $95,000–$95,600 USD.


See charts (late-2025 metals move):


The bigger point is not “who won 2025” but what markets implied about the regime. Metals were treated as crisis and debasement hedges, drawing flows from investors seeking protection from macro and geopolitical risks. Crypto, by contrast, was treated as liquidity-sensitive risk exposure, with performance tightly linked to broader risk sentiment and derivatives and ETF flows.


See chart (BTC vs gold with lag / lead–lag tools):


Lead–lag tools can make “metals first, BTC later” look plausible in some regimes, but they are not stable enough to rely on as a rule. In a macro-liquidity regime shift, Bitcoin can lag and then move violently once conditions flip.


6) Why silver may matter more than gold this time


Gold’s bid is the classic mix: reserve distrust, debasement, and insurance demand. Silver is different: it can pick up industrial and solar demand plus supply tightness alongside monetary demand, so it behaves less like a pure “store of value” and more like a pressure valve.


See silver market analysis and deficit charts:


World Silver Survey 2025:


Recent work highlights a shift from surplus accumulation to deeper structural deficits in the silver market, driven by industrial and solar demand. That mix suggests silver’s peak can reflect both macro fear and real-economy tightness, making its cycle behavior meaningfully different from gold’s.


If silver is peaking on “real-economy + scarcity” while Bitcoin is stuck in a “liquidity-risk asset” box, the divergence can persist longer than crypto traders want. But it can also set up a rotation if the macro backdrop turns risk-on while silver’s tightness keeps metals in the narrative foreground.


7) Two camps-both can be right (depending on regime)


The discourse splits into two camps.

Camp A: “Gold moves first; Bitcoin moves later.”

Metals lead the fear phase; Bitcoin becomes the accelerant once marginal risk appetite returns.

Camp B: “Bitcoin isn’t digital gold; it’s just a risk asset.”

Bitcoin needs liquidity and pro-risk positioning more than it needs inflation fear.


2025 has looked like a regime where metals are allowed to be defensive while crypto is priced as risk, which is why sequencing matters more than slogans. Whether metals-first, BTC-later plays out again will depend more on macro and flows than on narrative purity.


8) What 2026 might hinge on (the catalyst checklist)


If Bitcoin’s lag is a setup, it likely resolves because of catalysts—not storytelling. The watchlist is straightforward.


A) Fed path / real rates


Easing can help, but the reason for cuts matters: risk-on easing with stable growth is very different from recessionary cuts. Real yields will anchor the relative appeal of scarce assets versus cash and high-grade bonds.


B) Liquidity indicators


Broad money growth, funding conditions, and stress signals are still the macro backbone. Historically, Bitcoin has done better when money growth improves and real yields compress, aligning it with the equity and high-beta liquidity cycle.


See charts (macro strip):


These three series together provide a concise macro backdrop for assessing whether 2026 is likely to favor scarce assets and high-beta risk, or cash and duration.


C) ETF / institutional flows


See BTC ETF flows:

The post-ETF era means Bitcoin can reprice quickly when flows turn, especially during stress or de-risking episodes. Net inflows and outflows across large U.S. spot ETFs now act as a visible transmission channel between TradFi risk sentiment and BTC price.


D) Internal BTC demand

On-chain demand proxies, realized liquidity, and spot absorption after large drawdowns will help determine whether BTC remains primarily flow-driven or regains structural demand from long-term allocators. The stronger the structural bid, the more Bitcoin can decouple from short-term ETF and derivatives noise.


Bottom line

Bitcoin’s relationship with gold and silver has never been a clean, permanent correlation. When metals lead sharply, Bitcoin often lags first and, in some regimes, later catches up violently once liquidity and risk appetite return. The right question is not “Why didn’t Bitcoin move with gold?” but “What regime are we in now- and what would have to change for Bitcoin to reclaim the risk-on baton in 2026?”


At Myntra Capital, we track these regime shifts for edge. 

Visit https://myntracapital.com for deep dives on BTC treasuries, miners, and macro themes.


Disclaimer: Not financial advice. DYOR. Reach Simon at simon.l@myntracapital.com.



 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page