Bitcoin’s year is usually told through the dollar chart, but this is the familiar frame that captured BTC’s chaotic fourth quarter, during which it ran through a wild two-month range.
Prices rose to about $124,700 in late October, but fell toward the mid-$80,000 range in November, wiping out more than $40,000 from peak to trough.
The volatility was so great that traders spent much of the fall debating whether the broader structure remained intact even as the market tried to recover from the shock. But if you remove the dollar entirely and measure the same period in ounces of gold, the picture changes again.
It reveals something that has been unfolding almost unnoticed under the turmoil. The BTC/XAU ratio is on an 11-month decline of about 45% below its weekly high on January 12th, and this structure remains intact even after a modest rally in early December.
Bears not seen on dollar charts
At weekly closing prices, Bitcoin is only about 10% below its January level in dollar terms, but this small drop in numbers hides the fact that the path from peak to now has included one of the year’s most volatile periods, with Bitcoin soaring towards $125,000 in just a few weeks and then soaring into the $80,000 range.
Even after stabilizing through mid-December and recovering from $89,348 on December 5th to just over $92,300 by December 12th, the ratio to gold paints a very different picture. The drawdown was more than four times larger and spanned almost a full year with no reprieve.
The gap between temporary fluctuations in the dollar and sustained weakness in the ounce raises a larger debate about what the “real” returns are for allocators who treat Bitcoin as a hard asset.
Of course, part of the decline in this ratio is due to the sharp rise in gold itself as real interest rate expectations soften and geopolitical turmoil increases demand for havens.
Gold’s strength compresses any asset priced against it. But even then, the 46th consecutive week of declines in this ratio is a meaningful signal of how capital has accounted for hard asset risk throughout 2025.
Even the small increase in this ratio over the last week (approximately 2-3% increase from December 5th to December 11th) did not change the larger pattern or threaten the downward structure that has been in place since January.
The fall volatility in BTC/USD only emphasized this. Even though Bitcoin has rebounded from its November lows and gained thousands of dollars this week, it has not reversed widespread underperformance against gold.
This is where cross-asset benchmarks become useful rather than decorative. Using gold instead of the dollar or other fiat currencies removes distortions introduced by monetary conditions and policy cycles.
That’s a simpler question. How many ounces of shiny yellow gold is the market willing to exchange for one unit of digital scarcity? The answer is “less than before” week after week, and the consistency of that answer is more important than the noise of a single dip or rise on the USD chart.
What we can learn about this cycle from cross-asset benchmarks
The most interesting part of this entire analysis is how the two charts clearly distinguish Bitcoin’s dual identity. The USD chart reflects the liquidity-sensitive side of the market that is shaped by rapid fluctuations in dollar availability, ETF flows, and risk appetite. The fall turmoil fits neatly into the framework of a leverage-driven rally, sudden reversal, and fragile restructuring.
The XAU chart, on the other hand, reflects Bitcoin’s hard asset identity, the part that claims financial neutrality and long-term reserve potential. And on that axis, Bitcoin has been in decline for almost a full year, with October’s rally barely registering and November’s decline merely extending a trend already in place since January.
Institutional investors think from a cross-asset perspective. They don’t just ask if Bitcoin has recovered from its crash. They ask whether they have outperformed a basket of hedges, reserves, and real asset benchmarks that form the core of institutional investors’ portfolios.
A year of underperformance versus gold has forced Bitcoin theory to focus more on growth, technology, and adoption than on the assumption that digital scarcity acts like a naturally good hedge. That doesn’t negate that broader story, but it does pressure test it in a way that dollar-based analysis cannot.
This ratio-based reading comes with the same methodological caveats as any other reading. Gold may be entering its own overheating phase, and changes in liquidity conditions could change the structure of both.
But these warnings do not erase the central fact. Regardless of how dramatic Bitcoin’s USD price movements were in October and November, or how the market added thousands of dollars in the second week of December, nearly every week’s close since mid-January has pushed the ratio down.
What will happen to Bitcoin when 2026 comes into view?
For Bitcoin to break out of this quiet bear market measured in ounces, the BTC/XAU ratio would need to break its 11-month pattern and hit a higher weekly high, something that hasn’t happened since January.
That would require a combination of the strength of Bitcoin and the stability of gold, a combination that typically only emerges when liquidity expands significantly and demand for safe-haven assets eases.
Rather, if Bitcoin trades in the aftermath of fall volatility, as it did last week despite a modest recovery last week, while gold continues to rise or simply holds ground, the ratio could shift further and widen the gulf between traders who live by the USD chart and allocators who value assets in a cross-asset framework.
Benchmarks shape the story people tell about cycles. The dollar chart explains the fall crash and subsequent resilience. The Gold Chart highlights fundamental belief issues that have persisted throughout the year.
As 2026 approaches, that second chart is a simple test of what Bitcoin still has to prove: strength not only against currencies that fluctuate with policy cycles, but also against other stores of value that sit at the center of institutional allocation.
Until that test is passed, the ounce-denominated view will continue to remind the market that volatility and direction are not the same thing, and deeper cycle signals remain written in gold.