Crypto news

This week, the black gold market experienced a major shock: the benchmark Brent crude fell 9% over the week, dropping below the $80 per barrel mark. However, Bitcoin, contrary to many traders' expectations, barely reacted to this event, slipping only 1%. This divergence in dynamics forces us to reconsider the established view of a strong link between the hydrocarbon market and digital gold.

Traditionally, many market participants perceive cheaper energy as a "green light" for a subsequent rebound in the cryptocurrency market. However, the real picture is much more complex and lies in the nuances of inflation expectations, the distribution of positions on exchanges, and miner behavior. Let's break down why this connection turned out to be illusory.

Why traders persistently seek a Bitcoin bottom in falling oil prices

A common belief among market participants is that after a sharp decline in oil, Bitcoin often forms a global bottom. Some expect a new rise in oil prices in the second half of the year due to a possible escalation between Iran and Israel, as well as the anticipated introduction of fees for passage through the Strait of Hormuz. According to their calculations, it is this oil rebound that could trigger another wave of Bitcoin sell-offs and form the year's low.

The risks of such scenarios cannot be dismissed. Iran has just suspended 60-day negotiations with the US — this could push prices up again. But the link between oil and Bitcoin is based only on isolated episodes: looking at data over the past five years, no significant dependence is visible.

Five-year data: BTC and oil correlation approaches zero

The mathematical correlation between Bitcoin and oil over the past five years has been only 0.036. Recall that this coefficient is measured from +1 (complete trajectory alignment) to -1 (strictly opposite movement). The current level of 0.036 clearly demonstrates the complete absence of a stable relationship between the assets in question.

However, any average values can be deceptive. It is widely believed that the dependence on commodities activates exclusively during periods of strong price shocks. To test this hypothesis, analysts divided the historical period into two different phases: calm and high volatility.

Comparison of correlation in different market phases:

As can be seen from the table, even with detailed segmentation, both indicators remain extremely close to zero. This leads to the conclusion: there is no serious investment relationship between the assets under any conditions. The last thirty-day indicator dropped to -0.21, indicating a short-term divergence in rates in opposite directions, but the overall connection remains very weak.

Moreover, the chain of macroeconomic influence from energy to digital assets is largely broken. Fuel costs do indeed affect inflation expectations with a significant coefficient of 0.41. However, the impulse almost completely fades and does not reach the real yield of US Treasury bonds after inflation. And since bond yields themselves have a weak impact on cryptocurrency, the final signal is ultimately lost along this long path.

Currently, the US Federal Reserve exerts a much more powerful and direct influence on financial markets. The new chairman of the agency, Kevin Warsh, decided at the June 17 meeting to keep the base interest rate unchanged. At the same time, nine of the eighteen members of the US regulator forecast a rate hike during 2026. Thus, rate decisions impact Bitcoin faster than events in the oil market.

When oil rose, time-tested Bitcoin investors did not panic

Historical examples clearly confirm this thesis. When Brent crude rapidly rose to its local peak around $119 in late March, the price of the leading cryptocurrency did not fall but demonstrated enviable stability. During this same period, long-term investors holding coins in wallets for more than 155 days steadily increased their positions. Their net purchase balance remained consistently positive until the beginning of June.

This behavior marked an important reversal after major sell-offs in the second half of 2025. This upward trend clearly proves that the most patient large investors were not at all frightened by expensive fuel. The only direct economic link between these industries lies through the mining sector. Electricity is the main resource for cryptocurrency mining, so an abnormally high cost of energy can reduce business margins.

Nevertheless, the total network hashrate, reflecting the overall computing power of equipment, has been steadily increasing recently. This occurs despite the decline in the price of WTI crude. Such growth in power against the backdrop of cheaper resources indicates miners' fundamental belief in the long-term prospects of the industry. Notably, the computing power remained virtually unchanged even during the March rally in the hydrocarbon market.

Since large investors and miners demonstrate high resilience, the source of current pressure must be sought elsewhere. The main catalyst is the derivatives market.

Where the pressure on Bitcoin is coming from

Key warning signals are now clearly visible in the derivatives sector. Bitcoin's open interest indicator, reflecting the total value of active futures contracts, increased from $21.83 billion to $23.45 billion since June 11. Simultaneously, the funding rate for futures changed sharply, moving from a positive zone around +0.0023% into negative territory around -0.002%.

Recall that funding represents regular payments between long and short traders to balance the price. A negative funding rate means that sellers are forced to pay buyers to maintain their positions. This dynamic vividly reflects the predominance of bearish sentiment. The increase in open contracts along with the falling rate indicates that speculators are actively opening shorts, rather than rushing to buy the current dip.

This situation contains an important market logic. If cheaper commodities truly acted as a powerful driver for cryptocurrency growth, exchange players would be massively opening long positions. However, in practice, short positions currently dominate. This prevailing picture creates ideal conditions for a short squeeze. In such a situation, any random upward impulse will force bears to panic close their positions and buy back coins, leading to an avalanche-like rise in quotes.

And here lies the main mental trap for investors. If a short squeeze does occur, many commentators will again rush to explain the price surge by falling oil prices. Although, in reality, the upward movement will be triggered solely by the technical closure of margin positions, and not by commodity factors. At the same time, the overall background will remain negative, causing the impulse to be short-lived.

Analytical conclusion: As of today, Bitcoin's connection to the oil market is too weak to exert a real influence on quotes. While Brent trades around $79 per barrel, Bitcoin holds the $62,800 level. This mark is approximately half of the historical October high of $126,200. It is clear that the next powerful price impulse for cryptocurrency will be dictated not by the price of a barrel, but by the decisions of the US Federal Reserve and conditions in the derivatives market. Investors should focus on these fundamental factors, rather than outdated stereotypes about correlation with commodities.