Can Bitcoin be a long-term monetary asset and still fall with technology stocks? The source article’s answer is yes: those roles can coexist, and short-term correlations do not settle which one will dominate.
Historical source context: Cathy of 白话区块链, published by TechFlow on November 6, 2026, at 23:04:02 UTC+8. The events and figures below are presented as reported in that article.
One sell-off, two different outcomes
On November 4, the Dow rose 3% and Bitcoin rebounded to about $81,000. A day later, the Nasdaq Composite fell 5.52%, while Bitcoin reached an intraday low near $75,200 and closed around $76,000, down approximately 5.5%, according to CoinGecko figures cited in the article.
Gold, by contrast, rose about 0.9% on November 5. The Nasdaq 100 fell approximately 6.5%.
The reported trigger was outside crypto. Reuters attributed market concerns to a possible slowdown in data-center construction after Democrats won control of Congress. Nvidia fell 9.26% and AMD fell 17.26%, despite AMD reporting results above expectations and nearly doubling its data-center revenue. All 11 S&P 500 sectors declined.
For that session, Bitcoin behaved more like a risk asset than a refuge from falling stocks.
How pressure can reach Bitcoin
The article describes a transmission chain: technology-stock losses prompt institutional selling of Bitcoin ETFs, those outflows pressure Bitcoin’s price, and leveraged positions are liquidated as prices fall further.
Farside figures cited in the report put net Bitcoin ETF outflows at approximately $1.5 billion between October 30 and November 5. That included $643 million on October 30 and more than $430 million on November 5.
The article also reported more than $1 billion in crypto liquidations over 24 hours, with nearly 90% involving long positions and about 210,000 traders liquidated.
These figures support the article’s account of selling pressure and leverage amplifying the decline. They do not, by themselves, establish every step of the proposed causal chain.
Why “decoupling” is not a permanent status
The earlier evidence had looked different.
In a February 9 report, Grayscale research head Zach Pandl said Bitcoin had traded closely with early-stage, highly valued software stocks over at least the preceding 12 months. He interpreted the drawdown as broader de-risking in growth portfolios rather than a crypto-specific problem.
By late August, Grayscale’s three-month measures showed Bitcoin’s correlation with gold rising from near zero at the start of the year to above 50%. Its correlation with the Nasdaq 100 had declined from above 60% to about 33%.
Then, on October 21, K33 Research reported renewed alignment between Bitcoin and the Nasdaq, with nearly identical two-week returns. Research head Vetle Lunde cautioned that recent relative resilience did not mean a genuine break from equities.
The limitation is the measurement window. Grayscale’s 90-day correlations and K33’s comparison of two-week returns describe different periods and are not interchangeable measures. Neither establishes a lasting identity for Bitcoin.
The source offers another counterexample: during the April 2025 tariff shock, Bitcoin rose 13% for the month while the Nasdaq was roughly flat. Their alignment subsequently increased after the tariff pause.
Long-term expectations are not short-term protection
Pandl’s February framing was that Bitcoin could be both a store-of-value asset and a growth asset. His longer-term proposition was conditional: if Bitcoin succeeds as a monetary asset, its price behavior could eventually become more like gold’s.
The article also cited JPMorgan’s October inclusion of Bitcoin in its long-term capital-market assumptions. Its ten-year baseline projected a 10% annualized return, compared with 7.5% for US large-cap equities. But the assumptions also included 55% volatility and unstable correlations; JPMorgan did not include Bitcoin in its main portfolio models.
Those are model assumptions, not promised returns or evidence of reliable protection during a sell-off.
The useful distinction is between a long-term monetary thesis and a short-term hedge. Bitcoin may be discussed in the first role without consistently performing the second. The November episode illustrates the trade-off: institutional access can bring capital into Bitcoin, but it can also transmit broader market selling pressure.