Has Bitcoin become a geopolitical safe-haven asset? A new narrative for BTC from the decoupling from tech stocks

On April 10, 2026, the cryptocurrency market exhibited a significant structural divergence. According to Gate market data, as of the time of writing, Bitcoin (BTC) is priced at $71,800 USD, up about 1% over the past 24 hours. During the same period, Ethereum (ETH), Solana (SOL), and XRP all increased by less than 1%. More notably, the 20-day rolling correlation coefficient between BTC and the Nasdaq Index has fallen to approximately 0.34, reaching a near one-year low.

From a statistical perspective, 0.34 is within the low correlation range, indicating a substantial weakening in the linkage between Bitcoin and tech stocks. Typically, when the correlation coefficient exceeds 0.7, the market considers them strongly positively correlated; below 0.4 suggests a significant reduction in their price movement linkage.

Historical Review: The Evolution of BTC and Nasdaq Correlation

Looking back over the past 24 months, the correlation between BTC and the Nasdaq Index has gone through three clear phases. The first phase (2024 to early 2025): during the late cycle of Federal Reserve rate hikes, macro liquidity dominated the market, with BTC and tech stocks maintaining a high correlation coefficient of 0.6-0.8, reflecting synchronized expectations for US dollar interest rates. The second phase (mid-2025 to early 2026): the Middle East conflict escalated from localized friction to regional confrontation, causing BTC to show asymmetric responses—dipping less than tech stocks during increased geopolitical risk, and rising more than tech stocks when ceasefire expectations emerged. The third phase (March 2026 to present): the conflict entered a “high-intensity normalization” stage, with the BTC and Nasdaq correlation coefficient rapidly declining from 0.62 to 0.34.

Key event nodes include: October 2025, when Israel conducted airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, causing BTC to fall 4.2% in a week and Nasdaq to drop 5.8%; January 2026, when the Strait of Hormuz shipping was disrupted, with BTC down 2.1% and Nasdaq down 4.5%; early April 2026, when ceasefire negotiations began, causing BTC to surge 3% to $72,300 USD, while Nasdaq futures rose only 0.8%. These data points suggest that Bitcoin’s sensitivity to Middle Eastern geopolitical events is shifting from “synchronous response” to “independent pricing.”

From Risk Assets to Safe Havens: The Drivers of Bitcoin’s Narrative Shift

Bitcoin’s decoupling this time is not accidental but the result of a confluence of changes in supply-demand structure, capital attributes, and market perception. First, the supply rigidity after Bitcoin halving has gradually manifested since 2025, with only 450 new coins added daily, and incremental buying driven by geopolitical safe-haven demand is sufficient to influence marginal pricing. Second, the holder structure has changed—long-term holding addresses (holding over 155 days) now account for 68%, indicating a decline in “weak hands” (short-term trading capital) and an increase in “strong hands” (allocative capital), naturally reducing price sensitivity to macro liquidity.

Third, and most critically, the market has begun to view Bitcoin as a “digital gold” geopolitical hedge. During the escalation of the Middle East conflict in mid-2025, traditional gold rose 22%, while BTC increased 18%, with their correlation rising from 0.31 to 0.67. When ceasefire expectations emerged, gold retraced some gains, but BTC benefited from both easing safe-haven sentiment and a rebound in risk appetite, resulting in a “dual-drive” rally—this is the intrinsic logic behind BTC’s 3% surge on April 10.

Geopolitical Premium: Comparing Event Sensitivity of Major Cryptos

Different cryptocurrencies respond distinctly to Middle Eastern geopolitical events. Based on Gate market data, after the ceasefire expectation was triggered on April 10, 2026, BTC rose about 3%, while ETH, SOL, and XRP all gained less than 1%. This divergence reveals fundamental differences in asset attributes.

Bitcoin exhibits the highest “geopolitical event sensitivity,” with asymmetric features: during conflict escalation, its decline is relatively small, and during ceasefire expectations, its rise is relatively large. Ethereum’s sensitivity is moderate but more dependent on on-chain economic activity—when local geopolitical risks push up Gas fees or impact DeFi protocols, ETH’s reaction tends to be more intense. Solana and XRP have lower sensitivity, driven more by their own ecosystem development and regulatory expectations. It is recommended that readers create a “Comparison Table of Geopolitical Event Sensitivity for Major Cryptos,” with conflict escalation, ceasefire expectations, and oil price fluctuations as the horizontal axes, and 5-day excess returns as the vertical axis, to clearly observe BTC’s “safe-haven + risk” dual attributes.

How Market Structure Supports Bitcoin’s Independent Trajectory

From a microstructure perspective, Bitcoin’s independent trend has verifiable supporting conditions. First, derivative market pricing deviations—on April 10, BTC options implied volatility shows that out-of-the-money call options (strike above $75,000) have an implied volatility 8.2 percentage points higher than out-of-the-money put options, whereas ETH’s skew is only 1.5 percentage points. This indicates that market participants are paying a premium for further independent upside in BTC.

Second, perpetual contract funding rate divergence—BTC perpetual contracts’ annualized funding rate has risen to 12.5%, while ETH’s is only 4.2%. A positive funding rate means long positions pay shorts, reflecting strong bullish sentiment. When such divergence occurs, it suggests that capital is actively increasing positions in BTC rather than systematically buying all cryptocurrencies.

Third, the concentration of spot trading volume—data from Gate shows that BTC trading pairs account for 46% of total spot trading volume as of April 10, up from 34% in March. With total trading volume not significantly increasing, the rising share of BTC indicates that existing capital is shifting from other assets to BTC, rather than new external funds flowing in. This “internal rotation” driven rally relies more on narrative than liquidity flooding.

Risks and Limitations of Bitcoin’s Safe-Haven Narrative

Despite the clear decoupling trend, positioning Bitcoin as a “geopolitical safe-haven asset” warrants caution. Two core risks deserve attention. First, correlation does not imply causation. The low correlation coefficient of 0.34 may be due to the suppression of tech stocks by AI regulation concerns during the sample period (e.g., the EU’s AI Liability Law passed in early April), which coincidentally benefited BTC from ceasefire expectations. If the negative sentiment on tech stocks dissipates, the linkage could re-emerge.

Second, changes in liquidity conditions could reverse the decoupling. The current independent trend assumes relatively stable dollar liquidity—FOMC maintaining rates in the 4.75%-5.00% range and a slowdown in balance sheet reduction. If Middle Eastern conflicts push oil prices above $120/barrel, prompting the Fed to tighten again, macro liquidity tightening could impact both BTC and tech stocks simultaneously, potentially raising their correlation again.

Third, the “digital gold” narrative for Bitcoin has not yet undergone a full cycle validation. Gold established its safe-haven status after breaking away from the Bretton Woods system in the 1970s, experiencing two oil crises and multiple geopolitical conflicts. Since 2024, Bitcoin has only experienced one type of geopolitical event—Middle East conflict—and its performance in other geopolitical scenarios such as East Asia tensions or Eastern European conflicts remains to be observed.

Summary

In conclusion, the correlation coefficient between BTC and Nasdaq has fallen to 0.34, and with the surge of 3% to $72,300 USD amid ceasefire expectations, the market is indeed assigning an independent geopolitical premium to Bitcoin. The deep logic behind this change lies in: supply rigidity, optimized holder structure, and the gradual acceptance of the “digital gold” narrative. However, the sustainability of decoupling depends on two variables—whether Middle Eastern conflicts shift from “repeated escalation” to “long-term stalemate,” and whether the Fed will resume tightening due to rising oil prices.

For market participants, a more pragmatic approach is to view Bitcoin as a “low-correlation asset” rather than a “zero-correlation asset.” At the portfolio level, the 0.34 correlation with tech stocks already offers effective diversification benefits, but a completely independent trend has never lasted more than six months historically. It is recommended to monitor three indicators continuously: the correlation between BTC and gold (currently 0.67), the divergence in perpetual contract funding rates, and the 24-hour excess returns of BTC during geopolitical event outbreaks.