Bitcoin could reassert itself as a leading macro asset despite lagging gold and US technology stocks last year, according to Arthur Hayes, co-founder of BitMEX. In recent commentary, Hayes framed Bitcoin’s performance primarily as a function of dollar liquidity rather than asset-specific fundamentals. He argued that tighter liquidity conditions in 2025 constrained crypto markets, while other sectors benefited from targeted policy support and capital allocation.
Hayes emphasized that Bitcoin’s underperformance relative to gold and the Nasdaq should not be viewed as a structural shift. Instead, he described it as a cyclical outcome driven by monetary conditions, noting that Bitcoin historically responds most strongly when dollar liquidity expands. In his view, the groundwork for such a shift is forming as policymakers and financial institutions reassess growth and funding priorities.
Liquidity Conditions and Monetary Policy
Central to Hayes’ thesis is the expectation that US dollar liquidity will increase meaningfully in 2026. He pointed to the potential expansion of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet, easing financial conditions, and a gradual decline in borrowing costs as key contributors. Lower mortgage rates and looser credit standards could feed broader asset markets, including cryptocurrencies, as capital seeks higher returns.
Hayes also highlighted the role of commercial banks in financing government-backed strategic sectors. Increased lending tied to fiscal priorities could inject additional liquidity into the financial system, indirectly supporting risk assets. From a macro perspective, Bitcoin remains sensitive to these dynamics, acting as what Hayes describes as “monetary technology” whose valuation reflects expectations around fiat currency debasement.
Diverging Paths for Crypto, Gold, and Tech
While Bitcoin struggled in 2025, gold and US technology stocks posted strong gains. Hayes attributed this divergence partly to policy-driven capital flows into artificial intelligence and defense-related industries. He argued that government support and executive actions distorted traditional market signals, channeling investment toward favored sectors regardless of underlying returns.
Gold, meanwhile, benefited from inflation hedging demand and geopolitical uncertainty. Bitcoin, lacking similar institutional tailwinds during the period of tightening liquidity, fell behind despite maintaining its role as a hedge against long-term currency erosion. Hayes suggested that once liquidity conditions normalize, Bitcoin could compete more directly for capital currently allocated to gold and equities.
Institutional Context and Market Implications
From an institutional standpoint, Hayes’ outlook underscores Bitcoin’s evolving position within macro portfolios. Rather than trading purely on retail sentiment, Bitcoin increasingly reflects global liquidity cycles, fiscal policy, and banking system behavior. This aligns with broader trends in which digital assets are evaluated alongside traditional macro instruments.
Although Hayes stopped short of making explicit price forecasts, his analysis reinforces the view that Bitcoin’s long-term relevance is tied to monetary policy and systemic liquidity. As investors monitor shifts in central bank balance sheets and credit conditions, Bitcoin’s trajectory may once again hinge on forces well beyond the crypto-native ecosystem.
