Bitcoin has returned to the $100,000 mark since May 8th and has remained stable at this key price level for several days, with the market eagerly anticipating a potential breakthrough, especially since it is currently not far from the historical high of $109,800 set in January this year.
Bloomberg Analyst: Bitcoin Does Not Perform Like Digital Gold
Against this background, Bloomberg Intelligence senior commodity strategist Mike McGlone posted on the X platform on May 13th, offering a warning about Bitcoin's market performance.
He noted that Bitcoin's market behavior is increasingly resembling high-risk stocks rather than the traditionally perceived "digital gold" hedge asset. The analyst further suggested that if the S&P 500 experiences a pullback in 2025, Bitcoin might be significantly impacted, while gold could become a more stable hedging option.
Simultaneously, Mike McGlone shared a chart showing Bitcoin's 90-day correlation with the S&P 500 reached 0.679 in 2025, the highest since 2016, far exceeding gold's correlation with the S&P 500 (only 0.16).
He specifically mentioned Bitcoin's four-year cycle, indicating that its systemic risk is rising and may peak soon:
Less digital gold, more leveraged Beta, Bitcoin's peak harbinger: Bitcoin's high and continuing correlation with S&P 500, while S&P 500's extraordinary growth should normalize and potentially continue to favor gold.
Unless Beta continues to rise in 2025, my analysis focusing on cryptocurrency's four-year cycle shows Bitcoin's systemic risk is increasing, while gold is the opposite.
Polarized Community Opinions
However, the response to McGlone's viewpoint was polarized. On one hand, many people agreed with his analysis, finding his data and perspective worth noting; on the other hand, numerous netizens questioned his predictions, believing Bitcoin's long-term potential remains underestimated.
One user specifically countered: "I don't deny your data analysis, but you might be surprised by Bitcoin's adoption curve. I firmly believe that in the near future, you'll stop using terms like '3x Beta'." Another user more directly challenged McGlone, asking: "At what price would you admit you were wrong? $200,000, $300,000, or $500,000?"
