Bitcoin's 36% Run Since August 18 Leaves Gold and Stocks Flat
Bitcoin has climbed 36% since August 18 while gold and equities barely moved, raising the question of whether the gap reflects a real correlation break or leverage mechanics.
Bitcoin has gained 36% since August 18, opening a 36-point performance gap over equities and gold in five weeks, according to 24/7 Wall St., while the S&P 500 tracker SPY closed at $771.35 on September 25, 2026.
Bitcoin has risen 36% since August 18, a five-week run that left the two assets it is most often compared against — gold and large-cap equities — effectively where they started. That is a 36-point performance gap in little over a month, and it is the kind of divergence that gets read two very different ways depending on who is holding the position.
The bullish reading is that the correlation regime has changed: bitcoin has stopped trading as a high-beta expression of the same liquidity that drives the Nasdaq and has started trading on its own supply-and-demand story. The less comfortable reading is that a move of that size, compressed into five weeks and unaccompanied by any parallel move in gold, looks like the signature of positioning rather than allocation — short covering and leveraged longs chasing a price that has already outrun the flows behind it.
The equity tape gives the comparison its teeth
What makes the 36-point gap notable is not that stocks fell. They did not. The SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (NYSEARCA: SPY) closed at $771.35 on September 25, 2026, up 0.54% on the day from a previous close of $767.18, inside a session range of $766.29 to $772.28. The Invesco QQQ Trust (NASDAQ: QQQ), which tracks the Nasdaq 100, finished at $744.50, up 0.46%, and the SPDR Dow Jones Industrial Average ETF (NYSEARCA: DIA) closed at $517.49, up 0.94%. Those are the figures as of the last trade at 20:00 GMT on September 25; markets were closed at the time of writing.
In other words, equities have been doing what equities do in a grinding, non-directional tape: small daily moves, no trend, no stress. Gold, per the same five-week comparison, has been similarly inert. Bitcoin did not outperform a selloff. It outperformed a shrug.
That matters for the correlation argument. Divergence during a risk-off event tells you something about hedging demand. Divergence during a flat tape tells you something about idiosyncratic flow — money moving into one asset for reasons specific to that asset, or a market structure that amplifies a modest amount of buying into a large price move.
Why a squeeze and a regime change look identical at the start
The uncomfortable part, as 24/7 Wall St. frames it, is that the mechanics behind the rally raise the question of whether the move reflects a genuine shift or a squeeze already running low on fuel.
The two are hard to tell apart in real time because they produce the same chart. A short squeeze happens when traders positioned for a decline are forced to buy back at rising prices, and each forced purchase pushes the price further against the remaining shorts. In perpetual futures markets — where most crypto leverage sits — that process is mechanical and fast: liquidation engines close positions automatically, and the resulting buying is price-insensitive. A genuine reallocation, by contrast, is slow, spot-driven and shows up in custody balances rather than in funding rates.
The distinguishing evidence is not price. It is the plumbing:
- Funding rates. Persistently high positive funding on perpetual futures means longs are paying shorts to stay in the trade. That is a crowded long, not a quiet accumulation.
- Open interest versus spot volume. If open interest climbed roughly in step with price, the rally was financed with borrowed money. If spot volume led, the buying was cash.
- Liquidation clusters. A squeeze burns its own fuel. Once the shorts are gone, the marginal buyer has to be someone with new money.
- Fund and ETF flows. Sustained net creations point to allocation; flat flows against a 36% move point to something else.
None of those series are reported in the underlying comparison, and they should not be guessed at. But they are the checklist, and they are what will settle the argument over the next few weeks rather than the next few days.
What breaks first if the fuel runs out
None of those series are reported in the underlying comparison, and they should not be guessed at.
A leverage-led advance unwinds differently from a flow-led one. If the 36% gain was built on borrowed positioning, the retracement tends to be fast and disorderly, because the same liquidation machinery that manufactured the upside runs in reverse. If it was built on spot buying from allocators who were underweight, the pullbacks get bought and the gap against equities persists or widens.
For investors with equity portfolios, the practical question is narrower than the headline suggests. A five-week divergence is not a correlation regime. Correlations between bitcoin and the Nasdaq have broken down before and re-formed, usually the moment a macro shock forces everything with a bid to be sold at once. The test of whether this one is real is not whether bitcoin outruns a flat S&P 500 — it is whether bitcoin holds up when the S&P 500 does not.
That test has not been run. The equity benchmarks closed higher across the board on September 25, with the Dow tracker leading at +0.94%. There has been no stress event in this window to price the hedge against.
The signals worth watching from here
Three things would move the debate off speculation. First, the behavior of the gap on the next genuine down day in equities: if bitcoin falls harder than the index, the correlation story is dead and the squeeze story wins. Second, whether the advance continues on declining leverage — rising price with falling open interest is the cleanest evidence of real demand taking over from forced buying. Third, gold. If the metal stays inert while bitcoin runs, the two are not competing for the same defensive dollar, and the "digital gold" framing does not explain this move.
Until then, the honest description of the last five weeks is that one asset moved 36% and two did not, in a market with no obvious macro catalyst to distinguish them. That is a fact about price. Whether it is a fact about correlation is a separate claim, and it needs evidence the tape has not yet produced.
Key facts
- Bitcoin move since Aug 18: +36% over roughly five weeks
- S&P 500 (SPY): $771.35, +0.54%, close of Sep 25, 2026 20:00 GMT
- Nasdaq 100 (QQQ): $744.50, +0.46%, same session
- Gold and equities: Described as stagnant over the same five-week window
Frequently asked questions
How much has bitcoin gained since August 18?
Bitcoin has risen 36% since August 18, according to 24/7 Wall St. Over the same roughly five-week stretch, gold and large-cap equities were essentially flat, which produced a 36-point performance gap between bitcoin and the two assets it is most frequently benchmarked against in asset-allocation debates.
Did stocks fall while bitcoin rallied?
No. Equities were stagnant rather than declining. The S&P 500 tracker SPY closed at $771.35 on September 25, 2026, up 0.54% on the day, with QQQ at $744.50 and DIA at $517.49. Bitcoin outperformed a flat, low-drama equity tape, not a selloff — which weakens the case that it acted as a hedge.
What is a short squeeze in crypto markets?
A short squeeze occurs when traders betting on a price decline are forced to buy back their positions as prices rise. In crypto perpetual futures markets, liquidation engines close losing positions automatically, generating price-insensitive buying that pushes the market higher and forces further liquidations, amplifying a modest initial move into a large one.
How can investors tell a squeeze from a genuine correlation shift?
Price alone cannot distinguish them. The evidence sits in market plumbing: funding rates on perpetual futures, whether open interest rose in step with price, the size and location of liquidation clusters, and whether fund flows show sustained net creations. Leverage-driven rallies unwind fast; spot-driven accumulation tends to hold on pullbacks.
What would prove the bitcoin-equity correlation has actually broken?
The decisive test is behavior during equity weakness, not equity calm. If bitcoin holds up on a genuine down day for the S&P 500, the correlation break is real. If it falls harder than the index, the divergence was positioning rather than a regime change. No such stress event occurred during this five-week window.
Does gold's flat performance say anything about the bitcoin move?
It argues against the 'digital gold' explanation. If bitcoin were absorbing defensive demand, gold would typically show some correlated interest. With the metal inert while bitcoin ran 36%, the two assets do not appear to be competing for the same safe-haven dollar over this period, pointing toward crypto-specific flows.
