Bitcoin's latest plunge revives the debate over owning it—and whether it's just 'crypto being crypto'
By Maksym Misichenko · CNBC ·
By Maksym Misichenko · CNBC ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel is divided on Bitcoin's 50% drop, with some arguing that new institutional inflows via ETFs could shorten drawdowns, while others warn about increased correlation with equities and potential forced selling from ETFs during a liquidity crunch. The net takeaway is that Bitcoin's role as a hedge and its expected value are being questioned, and its future performance may hinge on macro liquidity and regulatory factors.
Risk: Increased correlation with equities and potential forced selling from ETFs during a liquidity crunch
Opportunity: Structural bid from 2024 spot ETF arbitrage and ongoing AP-driven liquidity
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
Bitcoin has lost nearly half its value since reaching a record high above $123,000 in July 2025. After years of bitcoin rewarding those who held through periods of volatility, the selloff is just the latest test of investors' mettle.
But bitcoin's recent decline doesn't appear to reflect a fundamental change in the investment, says Daniel Sotiroff, associate director of ETF and Passive Strategies Research at Morningstar.
"I think a lot of this is crypto being crypto," he says.
Bitcoin's selloff comes amid weakness across a range of assets, as investors reassess risk and where to put their money. The Nasdaq Composite and gold have both pulled back from recent highs, falling roughly 4% and 8%, respectively. As of Friday, bitcoin traded around $63,900.
The recent decline likely reflects several factors, Sotiroff says, including investors taking profits after bitcoin's run to record highs. Expectations that interest rates could remain higher for longer may also be making investors more cautious about riskier assets, including bitcoin, he says. Other investors may be shifting money into different high-upside opportunities, including artificial intelligence-related investments.
While previous bitcoin selloffs were often followed by large rebounds in price, the latest decline may prompt some investors to revisit why they own bitcoin in the first place, Sotiroff says. Here's what he and other experts have to say about the case for holding crypto, and how much exposure is appropriate for the average investor.
Bitcoin is frequently promoted as an investment that complements more traditional assets in a portfolio. Because it doesn't always move in tandem with stocks, bonds or real estate, the thinking goes, a bitcoin holding could boost returns when other assets decline, Sotiroff says.
"I've heard it referred to as a diversifier. That seems to be the strongest argument," Sotiroff says.
Supporters also argue bitcoin can hold its value during periods of economic uncertainty or protect investors from inflation.
Sotiroff is more skeptical of those claims. He says the cryptocurrency's volatility makes it difficult to view as a reliable store of value and notes that investors already have other tools available to hedge against inflation, including Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities, or TIPS.
The recent selloff is a reminder that bitcoin's gains can be accompanied by equally dramatic declines, he says. That uncertainty is one reason many financial planners recommend limiting exposure to a small portion of a broader portfolio.
"You just really can't make a call on what direction it's going to go," says Sotiroff.
For a high-risk asset like bitcoin, a 1% to 5% allocation of an investor's overall portfolio is an "appropriate rule of thumb to mitigate risk and yet get some upside exposure," says Andrew Herzog, a certified financial planner and enrolled agent with The Watchman Group.
Herzog's recommendation is broadly consistent with what other financial planners have suggested for bitcoin, though the appropriate amount depends on an investor's risk tolerance.
"We're talking about low single digit percentage points," Sotiroff says. "If you went beyond that, you start to see increases in volatility in your portfolio."
Even as bitcoin has become easier for mainstream investors to own — including through the launch of spot bitcoin ETFs in 2024 — its dramatic price swings have remained a defining feature of the asset, underscoring why many financial planners continue to recommend modest allocations.
For some investors, those risks are part of the bargain. They are willing to hold bitcoin through large selloffs because they believe the cryptocurrency's long-term upside outweighs the volatility.
"What a selloff actually does is reveal which investors had a plan and which were riding momentum," says Matt Chancey, a CFP at Tax Alpha Companies. "If you owned bitcoin because it was going up, the case is broken, but the case was never sound."
Not all financial professionals agree bitcoin belongs in a portfolio.
Bitcoin differs from stocks, bonds and real estate because it doesn't generate earnings, interest payments or rental income that investors can use to estimate its value, says Robert Johnson, a finance professor at Creighton University. Instead, its price is largely determined solely by investor demand.
"You cannot invest in Bitcoin, you can only speculate," he says.
Sotiroff agrees that bitcoin is difficult to value using traditional financial metrics.
"The best analogy I've heard is that it's more like a collectible, because it's basically worth what other people are going to pay for it," he says.
Want to get ahead at work? Then you need to learn how to make effective small talk. In CNBC's new online course, How To Talk To People At Work, expert instructors share practical strategies to help you use everyday conversations to gain visibility, build meaningful relationships and accelerate your career growth. Sign up today!
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"Bitcoin's diversification benefit is eroding as ETF-driven ownership increases its sensitivity to the same risk-off forces hitting growth assets."
The article frames Bitcoin's 50% drop from $123k as typical volatility best limited to 1-5% of portfolios, likening it to a collectible without cash flows. Yet it underplays how 2024 spot ETFs have channeled persistent institutional inflows that prior cycles lacked, potentially altering drawdown duration even if correlations to Nasdaq rise. Macro caution on rates and AI rotation explains part of the selloff, but the piece misses whether this cycle's holder base is more sticky than 2022's. Volatility remains the core risk, not a new fundamental flaw.
ETF flows could stall or reverse if real yields keep climbing, leaving Bitcoin exposed as pure speculation without any valuation anchor to arrest further declines.
"Bitcoin still has secular demand from institutions and a built in scarcity thesis that could support a long-run re-rating even after a pullback."
Bitcoin's drop to about 63.9k challenges the store of value narrative, yet the article treats BTC as merely crypto. The real debate now is whether BTC has durable institutional demand and a scarcity thesis that could support a multi year re rating once liquidity stabilizes. Yet the risk is regulatory risk, energy concerns, and a potential rise in correlation with tech and other risk assets in downturns, which the piece glosses over. The diversification and inflation hedging arguments may hold if macro conditions stay unsettled, but they can break if policy tightens further. A buy the dip thesis hinges on rate paths and ETF flows turning supportive rather than just speculative demand.
Regulatory crackdowns and rising energy scrutiny could relegate BTC to crypto speculation rather than a durable diversification play, and its price could stay bidirectional with tech assets as correlation rises.
"Bitcoin's failure to maintain its 'digital gold' narrative during recent market stress confirms it is currently trading as a high-beta proxy for tech stocks rather than a hedge against systemic risk."
The article frames this 50% drawdown as 'crypto being crypto,' but it ignores the structural shift in Bitcoin's market microstructure since the 2024 spot ETF approvals. We are seeing the 'financialization' of Bitcoin, where it now trades in high correlation with the Nasdaq 100 (QQQ) and liquidity-sensitive risk assets. The real risk isn't just volatility; it's the loss of its 'digital gold' narrative. If Bitcoin fails to decouple from equities during a liquidity crunch, it loses its primary value proposition as a hedge. Investors should watch the correlation coefficient between BTC and the 10-year Treasury yield; if that remains inverse, the 'speculative asset' label holds, and the 1-5% allocation limit is not just a suggestion, but a survival necessity.
If Bitcoin's institutional adoption continues to accelerate, the 'collectible' argument fails; it becomes a global reserve asset where scarcity drives price regardless of traditional cash-flow metrics.
"A 48% decline while equities fell 4% reveals bitcoin is now a leveraged sentiment play, not a diversifier—the 1-5% allocation rule assumes positive expected value that the article never justifies."
The article frames bitcoin's 48% decline from $123k as cyclical volatility, not fundamental deterioration. That's defensible—but it obscures a harder question: the 1-5% allocation advice assumes bitcoin has *positive* expected value. The article never establishes that. Sotiroff admits bitcoin can't be valued using traditional metrics and compares it to a collectible. If true, then 'diversification benefit' is speculative. The real risk isn't the 48% drawdown; it's that bitcoin's correlation to risk appetite (Nasdaq down 4%, bitcoin down ~48%) suggests it's become a leveraged bet on sentiment, not a hedge. The article treats this as normal; I'd call it a warning sign that the diversification thesis is broken.
Bitcoin has outperformed stocks and bonds over 10+ years despite dozens of similar selloffs, and institutional adoption (spot ETFs, corporate treasuries) has fundamentally changed the demand structure—treating this as 'just volatility' may underestimate genuine macro tailwinds.
"ETF arbitrage introduces a new downside buffer that correlation arguments alone miss."
Claude questions Bitcoin's positive expected value, yet overlooks how 2024 ETF arbitrage by authorized participants creates a structural bid that prior cycles lacked, potentially shortening drawdowns even as Nasdaq correlations climb. This mechanism could support the 1-5% allocation more than sentiment-driven leverage implies, though heavy redemptions in a liquidity crunch would test it faster than collectible analogies suggest.
"ETF-driven liquidity and corporate demand can preserve BTC's diversification benefits even when short-run correlations rise, supporting a continued 1-5% allocation."
Claude overlooks a structural bid channel: 2024 spot ETF arbitrage and ongoing AP-driven liquidity, which can cap BTC drawdowns even as Nasdaq sells off. The correlation signal in one regime doesn’t erase longer-horizon diversification benefits if ETF/corporate demand remains supportive. The real risk remains macro liquidity and energy/regulatory headwinds, but dismissing BTC as a pure sentiment bet ignores active demand sources that could sustain 1-5% allocations.
"The ETF basis trade creates a structural risk of forced selling during liquidity crunches, undermining the theory that ETFs provide a stable floor."
Grok and ChatGPT lean too hard into the 'structural bid' from ETFs. They assume Authorized Participants provide a floor, but they ignore the 'basis trade'—leveraged hedge funds using ETFs to capture premiums. If the basis trade unwinds during a liquidity crunch, these ETFs become a source of forced selling, not stability. We aren't seeing a new 'floor'; we are seeing the financialization of volatility, where institutional plumbing exacerbates, rather than cushions, the downside.
"ETF microstructure is bidirectional under stress—forced selling and opportunistic buying both possible, making the 'structural bid' thesis untested."
Gemini's basis-trade unwinding risk is real, but it cuts both ways. Forced selling from leveraged hedge funds during a crunch is a tail risk—agreed. But authorized participants also have incentive to accumulate cheap BTC when premiums compress, creating a counter-bid. The risk isn't that ETFs are stable; it's that we don't know the net direction of AP behavior under stress. That's the blind spot nobody's naming: we're extrapolating 2024 flows into a regime that hasn't been tested.
The panel is divided on Bitcoin's 50% drop, with some arguing that new institutional inflows via ETFs could shorten drawdowns, while others warn about increased correlation with equities and potential forced selling from ETFs during a liquidity crunch. The net takeaway is that Bitcoin's role as a hedge and its expected value are being questioned, and its future performance may hinge on macro liquidity and regulatory factors.
Structural bid from 2024 spot ETF arbitrage and ongoing AP-driven liquidity
Increased correlation with equities and potential forced selling from ETFs during a liquidity crunch