There’s a model that’s guided crypto analysts since 2020: Bitcoin tracks Global M2 — the total amount of money in circulation worldwide — with roughly a 2-4 week lag. When central banks print, Bitcoin goes up. When they tighten, Bitcoin goes down. Simple.
I used to reference this framework myself. It’s intuitive. Money supply grows, assets with fixed supply absorb that excess capital, prices rise. The theory works — until it doesn’t.
Midway through 2025, Bitcoin broke that correlation. And as of early 2026, it still hasn’t resumed. Global M2 is growing at better than 10% year-over-year. Bitcoin’s YoY performance is negative. That’s not a small divergence — it’s the widest gap on record between BTC and global liquidity.
TLDR
- Bitcoin’s Global M2 correlation broke in mid-2025 and remains broken as of early 2026 — widest divergence on record
- Global M2 is growing >10% YoY while Bitcoin YoY performance is negative; the S&P also showed decoupling in 2025, complicating the narrative
- For income investors: stop relying on M2 models; watch ETF flows, institutional accumulation (MSTR), risk-off relative performance, and on-chain supply data instead
Meanwhile, the S&P 500 — according to the same analysts — still tracks Global M2 total return closely going back to 2009. So the narrative shifted: Bitcoin decoupled. The S&P didn’t. What gives?
I’ve spent years watching these macro frameworks get built up and then crumble when the data stops cooperating. Here is what is actually happening, why it matters for my portfolio, and what I’m watching instead.
Bitcoin and Global M2 Correlation: What Changed in 2025
Global M2 is a broad measure of money supply. It includes cash, checking accounts, savings deposits, and time deposits — essentially, the total money “in the system” across major economies. When central banks engage in monetary expansion — QE, rate cuts, stimulus — M2 grows. When they tighten, M2 shrinks or slows.
The theory behind applying this to Bitcoin is straightforward: with a fixed supply of 21 million coins, Bitcoin should act as a hedge against monetary expansion. When you flood the system with money, assets with scarcity premia outperform. Bitcoin, gold, real estate — the usual suspects.
From 2020 through early 2025, the data largely supported this. Bitcoin’s price moved in rough tandem with Global M2 growth, typically lagging by a few weeks. Analysts built trading models, price targets, and entire bull/bear frameworks around this relationship. MartyParty, a well-known crypto analyst, popularized the 50-day lag model — M2 growth predicting BTC price with a delay.
It was clean. It was compelling. And now it’s broken.
The Numbers: What the Bitcoin-M2 Divergence Actually Looks Like
Let me give you the exact picture Fidelity Digital Assets laid out in their January 2026 report:
- Global M2 YoY growth: >10% (positive and accelerating)
- Bitcoin YoY performance: Negative (as of January 2026)
This is not a minor pullback. This is the widest divergence between Bitcoin and global liquidity ever recorded. Every other time Bitcoin and M2 have diverged — 2017, early 2021, late 2022 — it eventually resolved. Bitcoin either caught up to M2, or M2 came back down to Bitcoin.
This time, neither has happened. They’re just drifting apart.
I’ve watched this closely because it directly impacts how I think about BTC in my portfolio. If the liquidity correlation that defined the last four years no longer holds, I need to understand why — and adjust accordingly.
Does the S&P Still Track M2? Here’s Where It Gets Messy
The InvestAnswers thesis — and I’ve referenced this in my own thinking — is that the S&P 500 still correlates with Global M2 total return going back to 2009. The implication: Bitcoin broke, but stocks didn’t. Bitcoin is no longer a liquidity trade.
But I pulled the data from tradingcenter.org, and it tells a more nuanced story. The S&P 500 also exhibited noticeable decoupling from global liquidity in 2025. Global M2 was rising while the S&P sold off. It wasn’t as dramatic as Bitcoin’s divergence, but it was there.
This matters because it undermines the clean narrative: Bitcoin is broken, S&P is fine. Both assets showed some decoupling. The question is less “why did Bitcoin break” and more “is this a temporary pause or a structural shift for both?”
My take: don’t oversimplify either relationship. The Global M2 correlation was always probabilistic, not deterministic. It worked as a general guide — not a trading signal. If it breaks for both Bitcoin and stocks, that’s a different conversation than “Bitcoin broke alone.”
Analyst Camps: Why Did Bitcoin Break From Liquidity Models?
The crypto analyst community is genuinely divided on this. I’ve tracked three main schools of thought:
Camp 1: Bullish — It’s a Temporary Lag
Fidelity remains in this camp. Their argument: M2 has historically preceded Bitcoin bull cycles with a lag. The current decoupling is temporary — Bitcoin will catch up when the next monetary easing cycle accelerates. They cite the 50-day lag model as evidence that M2 still leads, just with more delay than usual.
This is the most mainstream view. It keeps the framework intact.
Camp 2: Bearish — Decoupling Is a Market Top Signal
Mister Crypto — another well-known analyst — frames the decoupling differently. Historically, Bitcoin-M2 decoupling has preceded major market tops. The last two times this happened (late 2021, early 2024), Bitcoin entered 2-4 year bear markets. If the pattern holds, 2025’s break is a warning.
I find this framing interesting but incomplete. Correlation ≠ causation. Bitcoin could decouple for many reasons, not all of them bearish.
Camp 3: Novel — Quantum Risk Is Repricing Bitcoin
Charles Edwards, founder of the Capriole Investment Fund, has floated an provocative idea: 2025 represents a “Quantum Event Horizon” — the threat of quantum computing is repricing Bitcoin’s fundamental value. Under this view, Bitcoin isn’t breaking from M2; it’s being valued on an entirely new framework.
This is the fringiest take. Quantum computing threats are real but distant. I’m skeptical this alone explains a year-plus divergence. That said, it’s worth knowing because it illustrates just how divided the analyst community is on why this is happening.
What This Means For Income Investors
Here’s where the rubber meets the road for my portfolio.
I hold Bitcoin primarily for appreciation — not income. I don’t stake it (the yield is negligible compared to covered calls or YieldMax ETFs). So the question isn’t “should I sell BTC because it broke from M2?” The question is: If Bitcoin is no longer a pure liquidity trade, what is it becoming?
Three possibilities:
- Store of value maturing. Bitcoin is behaving less like a risk asset tied to liquidity and more like digital gold — a non-correlated asset that holds value independent of money supply. This would actually reinforce its role in my portfolio as a hedge.
- Risk-off asset confirming. My previous article on Bitcoin during the recent war — where BTC +13% while stocks and gold sold off — showed Bitcoin behaving like a risk-off asset. If this is the new normal, BTC’s correlation framework changes entirely (more below, less above).
- Just in a bear phase. It’s also possible that nothing fundamental has changed. Bitcoin is simply in a multi-year drawdown, correlation frameworks work during bull markets, and this is just what bear cycles look like.
I don’t know which is right. But I’m watching specific signals instead of relying on the M2 framework.
What Income Investors Should Actually Watch Instead of M2 Models
Here’s the dashboard I use for Bitcoin allocation decisions instead of staring at M2 charts:
1. Bitcoin ETF Inflows
I wrote about this recently — five consecutive green days for Bitcoin ETF inflows, the first such streak since September 2025. ETF flows tell me where institutional capital is moving now, not what M2 might suggest in two months. When ETFs are absorbing supply, that matters more to price than liquidity models.
2. Institutional Accumulation (MSTR and Treasuries)
MicroStrategy’s buying pace — they’ve purchased over 525,000 BTC this epoch, roughly 80% of total new issuance — is a supply-side shock that has nothing to do with global M2. If corporate treasuries keep allocating, scarcity dynamics shift independent of liquidity.
3. Risk-Off Relative Performance
During the recent conflict, Bitcoin +13%, gold +X, stocks -X. That behavior — outperforming equities in market stress — is more actionable than any M2 correlation. I track BTC/gold and BTC/equity relative performance in real-time now.
4. On-Chain Supply Tightening
Exchange reserves declining, hodler supply growing, wallet age increasing — on-chain metrics that signal long-term conviction. The supply side of the equation matters, and M2 doesn’t capture any of it.
M2 is one input. Not the whole picture. And for an income investor managing a multi-asset portfolio, the signals above give me more actionable information right now than any liquidity model.
FAQ
Is Bitcoin still correlated with global liquidity?
Not in the way it was from 2020-2024. The correlation has broken, and it remains broken as of early 2026. Whether this is permanent or temporary is the central question.
What is the 50-day lag M2 model?
The MartyParty model: Global M2 growth leads Bitcoin price by approximately 50 days. When M2 grows, Bitcoin tends to rise ~50 days later. This model still has supporters, but the 2025 divergence has tested its reliability.
Did the S&P also decouple from M2?
Yes. Tradingcenter.org data shows the S&P also had a notable divergence from Global M2 in 2025, though less dramatic than Bitcoin’s. This undermines the narrative that only Bitcoin broke the relationship.
Should I buy Bitcoin based on M2 signals?
My view: no. M2 is one macro indicator among many. More actionable signals right now include ETF inflows, corporate treasury accumulation, and relative performance vs. gold during risk events. M2 as a sole decision point worked in bull markets — it’s less reliable now.
What do you think? Is Bitcoin’s M2 correlation broken for good, or will it resume when the next liquidity wave hits? Drop your take in the comments — I’m genuinely curious how others are framing this.
If you want to build a position, I use Coinbase for straightforward BTC purchases. It’s not the cheapest for active trading, but for setting and forgetting, the interface is clean and the insurance is solid: Get started with Coinbase.
