Based on pre-conflict data, the correlation between BTC and the Nasdaq once reached as high as 0.75, making it almost a "high Beta mirror asset" of US tech stocks—whenever the Nasdaq rose or fell, BTC typically amplified the move in sync.

However, the market structure changes in this post-conflict cycle are remarkably evident, with correlation rapidly declining and even experiencing phases of decoupling.

This can be seen from the performance of macro variables:
Oil prices surged 33%, and according to traditional risk asset logic, BTC theoretically should have experienced around a 20% pullback, but the actual decline was only 2%.

The Nasdaq retreated about 4%, yet BTC not only didn't follow the decline but instead rallied counter-trend by approximately 9%.

The VIX fear index spiked 50%, and in theory, high-risk assets should have experienced a stampede, but BTC's overall performance remained exceptionally stable.

If interpreted through a traditional macro framework, these moves would be nearly "anomalous." But the real reason lies in the fact that market positioning structure has undergone a qualitative shift.

Short-term retail capital has decreased significantly, and market sentiment indicators once plummeted to an extreme fear zone of 15, with chips on the board gradually concentrating in the hands of ETF institutional capital, long-term holders (HODLers), and certain sovereign funds. These players won't frequently rebalance due to VIX, oil prices, or short-term macro volatility, as their investment horizons typically span 5-10 years.

This is why, amid increasingly intense macro volatility, BTC has instead begun developing an increasingly independent price logic.

So is Bitcoin truly becoming increasingly recognized as "digital gold"? Or is it merely a cyclical speculation?

#Gate广场AI测评官
#Gate2月衍生品市场份额创新高