Gold hits nine-week high as Bitcoin slips; correlation rebounds to 0.7
Gold rose 1.5% to $4,435 per ounce on Wednesday, outperforming Bitcoin which fell 0.4% on CPI data. While immediate reactions diverged, the 90-day correlation between the assets rebounded to 0.7. Long-term data shows gold up 144% over five years versus Bitcoin's 40%, though analysts note Bitcoin's volatility challenges long-term holding strategies.

*this image is generated using AI for illustrative purposes only.
Gold reached nine-week highs on Wednesday, climbing to $4,435 per ounce, its highest level since June 5. The precious metal gained 1.5% following the latest Consumer Price Index (CPI) print, even as Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) slipped 0.4% on the same economic data. This immediate divergence highlights differing short-term reactions to inflation metrics, yet longer-term data suggests a strengthening link between the two assets.
Divergent Immediate Reactions
Peter Schiff highlighted the contrasting responses to Wednesday’s CPI data, noting that gold and Bitcoin remain distinct asset classes in the short term. Gold’s rise was supported by significant retail interest, with the SPDR Gold Shares ETF (NYSE: GLD) recording $50 million in single-day retail inflows on August 5. This marked the highest retail inflow for the fund since mid-March.
Total inflows into gold ETFs reached $637 million that day, compared to $244 million flowing into U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs, according to The Kobeissi Letter. This disparity in capital flow underscores the current preference for traditional safe-haven assets among retail investors amid inflation concerns.
Correlation Rebounds to Digital-Gold Levels
Despite the immediate price divergence, CryptoQuant CEO Ki Young Ju flagged that Bitcoin’s 90-day correlation with gold has rebounded significantly. The correlation shifted from nearly negative 0.9 in early 2026 back to around positive 0.7. Ju described this level as indicative of the "digital-gold era," suggesting Bitcoin is once again being priced as a scarce, non-sovereign asset rather than purely as a high-beta technology trade.
Spot ETFs may be reinforcing this connection by allowing institutions to hold both Bitcoin and gold within similar portfolio frameworks. However, XWIN Japan added a caveat that a positive correlation is not automatically bullish, as both assets can move together in either direction. Confirming Bitcoin as a genuine safe haven would require sustained demand and consistent responses to real yields, the dollar, and inflation across multiple timeframes.
What the Numbers Show
Long-term performance data reveals a stark divergence between the two assets over extended periods. Macro analyst Lawrence McDonald compared their returns across one, two, and five-year horizons:
| Timeframe: | Gold: | Bitcoin: |
|---|---|---|
| 1 year: | +30%: | -47%: |
| 2 years: | +76%: | +7%: |
| 5 years: | +144%: | +40%: |
McDonald noted that five-year track records may be less meaningful for Bitcoin given its history of severe drawdowns. He pointed out that drops of 70% to 80% every few years often force investors out of positions before any recovery can materialize, limiting the practical utility of long-term average returns for many market participants.
Market Outlook
Analyst Michaël van de Poppe attributed Bitcoin’s recent drop to a liquidity grab from leveraged longs rather than a structural breakdown. He pushed back against narratives of diminishing returns, arguing that Bitcoin is poised to follow gold’s recent breakout. Van de Poppe stated his general belief that Bitcoin could run to $500,000+, citing gold’s historic breakout as a precursor.
How might the recent surge in retail inflows to gold ETFs influence institutional allocation strategies between traditional safe havens and Bitcoin in the coming quarter?
If Bitcoin's correlation with gold stabilizes at 0.7, what specific macroeconomic indicators should investors monitor to confirm its transition to a reliable non-sovereign store of value?
Given Lawrence McDonald's warning about Bitcoin's historical drawdowns, how might the current price volatility impact long-term holding behavior among new retail investors compared to experienced holders?

































