Bitcoin can be viewed as a long-term monetary asset while still trading like a technology stock during a sell-off. Those are different claims—and a short period of price correlation cannot settle either one.
That is the central distinction in Cathy’s article for 白话区块链, published by PANews on November 6, 2026, at 21:31 UTC+8. Its account of the November 5 sell-off illustrates why Bitcoin’s relationship with stocks and gold should not be treated as permanent.
One sell-off, two different responses
According to the article’s cited CoinGecko data, Bitcoin fell from about $80,300 to an intraday low near $75,200 on November 5, closing around $76,000—roughly 5.5% below the previous day’s close.
The Nasdaq Composite lost 5.52%, while the Nasdaq 100 fell about 6.5%. Gold, by contrast, gained approximately 0.9%.
The reported trigger was outside crypto. Reuters attributed the stock-market concerns to a potential slowdown in data-center construction after Democrats won control of Congress. Nvidia fell 9.26%, AMD lost 17.26%, and a semiconductor ETF declined more than 12%.
The article describes a transmission channel from technology-stock selling to Bitcoin ETF withdrawals, followed by leveraged liquidations that intensified the decline. It cites Farside data showing approximately $1.5 billion in net Bitcoin ETF outflows from October 30 through November 5, including more than $430 million on November 5.
It also reports more than $1 billion in liquidations over 24 hours, nearly 90% involving long positions, with around 210,000 traders liquidated. These figures describe the pressure surrounding the sell-off; they do not, by themselves, establish every step of the proposed causal chain.
Correlation changes with the measurement window
Only a few months earlier, the picture had looked different.
In late August, Grayscale research head Zach Pandl reported that Bitcoin’s correlation with gold over the preceding three months had risen from nearly zero at the start of the year to above 50%. Its correlation with the Nasdaq 100 had fallen from more than 60% to approximately 33%.
That encouraged an interpretation that Bitcoin was moving away from technology stocks and toward gold.
By October 21, however, K33 Research reported renewed alignment between Bitcoin and the Nasdaq, with nearly identical returns over two weeks. Research head Vetle Lunde cautioned that recent relative resilience did not mean genuine decoupling from equities.
The limitation matters: a 90-day correlation and a comparison of two-week returns are not interchangeable measurements. Different windows can produce different descriptions without establishing a lasting change in Bitcoin’s role.
A monetary thesis is not a short-term hedge guarantee
The source also describes a counterexample from March 2026. Grayscale’s April report said crypto had risen modestly while major stock indexes, bonds and precious metals declined during the Iran war.
Grayscale attributed that resilience partly to earlier reductions in risky Bitcoin positions and to Strategy’s purchase of approximately 44,400 BTC during March. That explanation is conditional on the circumstances—not evidence that Bitcoin must withstand the next market shock.
Pandl’s February 9 formulation was similarly qualified: Grayscale viewed Bitcoin as both a potential store of value and a growth asset. He wrote that if Bitcoin succeeded as a monetary asset over the long term, its price behavior might eventually resemble gold more closely.
Long-term forecasts carry their own limits. The article reports that JPMorgan included Bitcoin in its October long-term capital market assumptions, projecting a baseline annualized return of 10% over the next decade, versus 7.5% for U.S. large-cap stocks. But it also assumed 55% volatility and did not include Bitcoin in its main portfolio models, citing unstable correlations.
Those are model assumptions, not promised returns.
The practical distinction is simple: a long-term monetary thesis does not make Bitcoin a dependable short-term refuge from falling stocks. Its correlations can shift, and ETF flows and leverage can still expose it to the same pressures affecting other risky assets.