These days I keep observing a pattern I can't stop thinking about: Bitcoin isn't behaving like digital gold. Period. And that changes a lot.

You must have seen the numbers: BTC dropped from US$126 thousand last October to half that now. Meanwhile, gold hit a record of US$5,595 at the beginning of 2026, and central banks bought 863 tons last year. No central bank has touched Bitcoin. When you see a capital flow difference of 3 to 1 in that direction, it's hard to maintain the narrative that Bitcoin is digital gold, right?

But here’s the really interesting part: Bitcoin is moving almost perfectly in sync with tech stocks. Specifically, the correlation with IGV ( that ETF tracking software stocks ) reached 0.73 over the last 30 days. And it’s not just a week or two — this has been happening for over 18 months.

For context, short-term style shifts usually last 3 to 6 months. So 18 months is much longer, but still not enough to say it’s permanent. Still, it’s impossible to ignore.

At the start of 2026, when IGV fell 23% and Bitcoin dropped 19-20%, they moved almost in perfect sync. Bitcoin’s volatility was only 1.1 to 1.3 times higher than IGV — much less than many expected. This is no coincidence.

What’s causing this? I think there are three very clear structural reasons.

First: Bitcoin ETFs changed everything. Now Bitcoin is treated by institutional funds exactly like a tech stock. Same risk management systems, same allocation categories, same rebalancing decisions. When an institution needs to reduce exposure to growth, it sells Bitcoin and IGV in the same operation. This creates a reinforcing cycle: because they treat Bitcoin as a tech stock, capital moves along with tech stocks, and this sync further reinforces its classification as a tech stock.

Second: Bitcoin and tech stocks are sensitive to the same macroeconomic triggers. Both are long-duration assets, sensitive to real interest rates, money supply, dollar strength, overall risk aversion. When liquidity tightens, both suffer. When it expands, both gain. Does the VIX spike due to inflation concerns? Both fall together. That’s why in February, when two AI products were launched ( with no direct relation to Bitcoin ), Bitcoin’s price still fell — because the institutional market linked the news to the tech sector as a whole.

Third: there’s a real amplifying effect coming from MicroStrategy. This company is the largest publicly held Bitcoin holder in the world, but it’s classified as a software company on Nasdaq. This creates a mechanical, bidirectional link: when software weakens, MicroStrategy’s shares fall, which intensifies negative sentiment about Bitcoin, generating real selling pressure. At the peak in late 2025, MicroStrategy’s shares dropped 67%, outperforming declines in both IGV and Bitcoin itself. It’s as if the company is being traded at a discount relative to the Bitcoins it holds.

Now, the question everyone wants to ask: is this permanent or temporary?

Honestly, we don’t know yet. There are three possible scenarios.

Scenario one: the correlation persists. If liquidity remains tight in 2026, Bitcoin continues behaving like a high-volatility growth stock, maintaining a correlation of 0.5 to 0.8 with IGV. The question of what Bitcoin really is remains unanswered. This is probably the most likely outcome if nothing changes in Fed policies or institutional positions.

Scenario two: diverging paths. If the Fed starts easing liquidity, combined with the effects of the 2024 halving and reduced concerns about disruptive AI, Bitcoin could outperform tech stocks significantly in the second half of 2026. The correlation with IGV would fall to 0.3 to 0.5. This would confirm that the current synchronization is only cyclical, not permanent.

Scenario three: permanent convergence. If the correlation rises above 0.8 and stays even when the Fed begins cutting interest rates, and if official indices classify Bitcoin as part of the tech sector, then Bitcoin’s identity has truly changed forever.

The test is simple: if the correlation breaks when liquidity returns, it’s cyclical convergence. If they remain strongly linked even with loose liquidity, then it’s a change of identity.

And here’s what I think is the most important point: Bitcoin’s identity has never been fixed. It’s always been what the biggest market participants believed it to be. First miners and early adopters, then altcoin traders, then hedge funds, now institutional investors treating it as a long-term asset. That can change again.

But as long as we’re in this environment of tight liquidity, with institutional funds treating Bitcoin as part of their tech allocations, this synchronization with IGV is the reality that matters. It’s not about what Bitcoin was originally designed to be. It’s about who’s buying, how much they’re buying, and why.

The market prices an asset based on who owns it and why. And right now, that’s the dynamic at play.