Connect with us
DAPA Banner

Crypto World

Bitcoin Undervalued vs Gold: Analyst Signals Rally Ahead

Published

on

Crypto Breaking News

Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) is widely cited as undervalued when measured against traditional stores of value like gold and the broad money supply, according to Samson Mow, the chief executive of Bitcoin technology firm Jan3. In a Saturday post on X, Mow argued that BTC sits roughly 24% to 66% below its trend relative to gold’s market cap or the level of global liquidity, while gold itself appears overextended. The claim adds a contrarian note to ongoing debates about whether crypto markets have found a bottom or are simply pausing before another leg lower or higher.

At the same time, macro price benchmarks paint a mixed picture. Gold futures for April delivery closed at $5,247.90, while tokenized gold offering PAX Gold USD was trading around $5,404.14 as of the time of writing. Against that backdrop, Mow pointed to Bitcoin’s Z-score—a metric that gauges how closely BTC’s current price tracks its long-run average relative to a benchmark, in this case the BTC-to-gold ratio. A Z-score of 0 means the price aligns with the historical average; negative values signal the asset trading below that average.

The Z-score for the BTC-to-gold ratio was around -1.24 at press time, suggesting BTC remains below its historical mean but not by the extreme margins seen in past episodes. Data from TradingView shows that the indicator has swung widely in the past, including moments when the ratio dipped far beneath the norm. In November 2022, for instance, the BTC-to-gold Z-score briefly plunged below -3, a period coinciding with the FTX collapse and a subsequent rally in BTC of more than 150% over the following 12 months.

This history of decisive rebounds after deep dislocations is echoed by earlier cycles. During the Covid crisis in March 2020, the Z-score dipped below -2 and BTC bottomed near $3,717, only to surge more than 300% in the ensuing year, culminating in a then-astronomical peak in November 2021 of around $69,000. Those patterns have led some analysts to draw parallels with today, while others caution that the macro and regulatory landscape has evolved, potentially altering how these signals play out in real time.

Advertisement

While Mow highlights potential upside based on valuation gaps and historical Z-score triggers, others in the market remain wary. A cross-section of analysts has projected further downside for BTC as investor sentiment wavers in the face of geopolitical tension and persistent macro uncertainty. Some believe the market could test lower levels, with discussions framing a possible move toward new lows for the current cycle. Yet even within this more cautious camp, the same data points used by Mow—value signals and on-chain momentum—are often cited as important clues for the next meaningful directional shift.

For context, the broader crypto narrative has included crosscurrents—from tailwinds such as institutional interest and macro liquidity to headwinds like regulatory risk and episodic liquidity squeezes. The focal point for many observers remains Bitcoin’s role as a potential hedge or as a risk-on asset depending on the moment, as well as how it weathers macro shocks and liquidity cycles. The weekend’s developments in the Middle East added another layer of geopolitical risk, underscoring that crypto markets, like traditional markets, are not insulated from global events.

As the debate about BTC’s trajectory evolves, the market is reminded of past cycles where valuation gaps and extreme sentiment extremes have preceded sharp reversals. The question remains whether the current price near the mid-to-high $60,000s will reflect a duration that negates those earlier patterns or whether a more persistent risk-off mood will push Bitcoin toward the lower end of the spectrum before new catalysts emerge.

In sum, while the price action continues to oscillate near current levels, the ongoing discussion about BTC’s fair value relative to gold and the money supply—augmented by Z-score analysis—provides a framework for assessing potential turning points. The next few weeks could test the resilience of the current range, particularly if the BTC-to-gold ratio reverts toward its historic mean or if macro developments reassert their dominance over market sentiment.

Advertisement

The Z-score framework has shown that when BTC-to-gold moves extend beyond historical norms, corrections or rallies often follow in subsequent months. The current reading around -1.24 keeps the door open to a test of higher ground if support holds and risk appetite returns.

Bitcoin to crash to $50,000?

The contrarian view presented here sits against a broader chorus of analysts who warn that more downside could be on the horizon, driven by ongoing investor caution and geopolitical tensions. Several observers have flagged the possibility of BTC tracing a path toward the $50,000 mark, arguing that price action could mirror or exceed prior bear-market patterns as macro data and regulatory signals unfold. By contrast, those who emphasize valuation and historical precedents point to the same indicators that historically preceded significant rallies following sharp declines, suggesting that a bottom could be forming even as volatility remains elevated.

The ongoing debate about BTC’s bottoming process is not just about price—it touches on liquidity dynamics, risk sentiment, and the durability of crypto-specific catalysts such as on-chain activity, mining economics, and institutional participation. As BTC hovers in a range, traders will likely scrutinize key technical levels, the pace of liquidity inflows, and how macro shocks translate into risk-on or risk-off moves across crypto markets.

Ultimately, the discussion centers on how investors interpret valuation signals in the context of a still-fragile macro environment and evolving regulatory expectations. While some forecasts call for a dramatic re-rating, others argue that a sustainable recovery could emerge as confidence builds and fundamentals align with price action. The next leg of this narrative will be shaped by the balance between speculative momentum and real-world utility that continues to define the crypto market’s longer-term trajectory.

Why it matters

Valuation-driven arguments like Mow’s underscore a broader point: crypto markets are not merely driven by narratives or hype but by measurable relationships to broader financial assets. If Bitcoin’s price starts to close the gap with gold and money supply on a sustained basis, it would alter the risk-reward calculus for both retail and institutional participants, potentially reshaping portfolio allocations and hedging strategies.

Advertisement

Moreover, the BTC-to-gold comparison frames how crypto assets are perceived in the context of traditional stores of value. A shift back toward historical norms in this ratio could signal renewed appetite for crypto as a non-sovereign store of value or a diversification vehicle, even as gold remains a familiar anchor for risk management. These dynamics matter not only for traders but also for developers, miners, and fund managers evaluating how crypto markets fit into broader exposure targets.

From a market structure perspective, such signals also influence liquidity flows, cross-asset correlations, and the pace at which crypto products—like ETFs and exchange-based investment vehicles—can attract new money. In an environment where macro volatility is a persistent feature, signals that imply potential volatility compression or expansion will be watched closely by participants seeking to calibrate risk and reward.

What to watch next

  • Monitor BTC price action relative to the -2 and -3 Z-score thresholds for BTC-to-gold, noting whether the ratio reverts toward the mean or diverges further.
  • Track the BTC-to-gold ratio on TradingView for signs of momentum shifts that align with macro liquidity trends or risk-on/off sentiment shifts.
  • Watch macro indicators and regulatory updates that affect crypto liquidity and investor confidence, especially in regions with active policy debates.
  • Observe major price drivers such as exchange capital flows, mining economics, and the pace of adoption in institutional and retail channels.

Sources & verification

  • Samson Mow, X post discussing Bitcoin valuation relative to gold and global money supply (link provided in original coverage).
  • TradingView data for the BTC-to-gold ratio (BTCXAU) used to illustrate the Z-score dynamics.
  • Historical references to the FTX collapse and subsequent BTC rally from Cointelegraph coverage.
  • Cointelegraph reporting on the Covid-era price dynamics and BTC’s subsequent rally to multi-year highs.
  • Link to tokenized Gold price (PAX Gold USD) cited in the market context of gold price benchmarks.

Bitcoin valuation signals and potential reversal

Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) sits at a crossroads flagged by valuation comparisons and a momentum metric that has historically preceded meaningful moves. Samson Mow’s main contention is that BTC is notably undervalued relative to gold’s market cap and the broader money supply—an assessment grounded in quantitative gaps rather than pure sentiment. Specifically, he points to a calibration where Bitcoin’s current level is roughly 24% to 66% below its trend line when juxtaposed with gold’s market capitalization or the extent of global liquidity. By contrast, gold, a traditional hedge, is described as overextended in this framing.

The argument leans heavily on the BTC-to-gold Z-score, a gauge of how far the price of BTC deviates from its long-run average when measured against gold. At the moment, the Z-score hovers around -1.24, indicating BTC is below its historical mean but not in territory that has inexorably presaged a parabolic rally. In the past, however, the same metric has signaled powerful reversals: during November 2022, the ratio’s Z-score dipped beneath -3, a backdrop that preceded a roughly 150% advance in BTC over the following year as traders digested the FTX collapse and the broader liquidity environment.

Historical analogies are a recurring feature of crypto markets, and the Covid-19 period is often cited in tandem with the Z-score narrative. In March 2020, the metric slipped below -2 and BTC carved a bottom near $3,717 before staging a multi-hundred percent recovery in the subsequent 12 months, culminating in the 2021 rally that took prices to the vicinity of $69,000. Those episodes illustrate how valuation gaps paired with macro stress can coincide with outsized upside if demand returns and risk appetite stabilizes.

Advertisement

Yet the current cycle carries its own wrinkles. Some analysts project further downside as investors absorb macro uncertainty and geopolitical tensions, with price targets that contemplate a move toward the $50,000 area. Others maintain that the combination of a reversion toward historical norms in BTC’s valuation relative to gold and a renewed willingness to allocate capital to crypto assets could spark a fresh leg higher. The truth likely lies somewhere in between, shaped by how swiftly liquidity conditions normalize, how regulation evolves, and how much on-chain activity confirms sustained network utility.

The price backdrop remains fluid, with BTC trading in the mid- to high-$60,000s and a broader market environment that still rewards resilience and clear catalysts. If the underlying relationships continue to align with past cycles—valuation gaps closing, risk sentiment shifting, and liquidity improving—the potential for a renewed price impulse cannot be discounted. Conversely, if macro headwinds intensify or regulatory constraints tighten, the path could tilt toward range-bound behavior or further corrections. Investors should remain vigilant for shifts in the balance of fear and opportunity that have historically driven crypto volatility.

Risk & affiliate notice: Crypto assets are volatile and capital is at risk. This article may contain affiliate links. Read full disclosure

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Crypto World

Mysterious Crypto PAC Receives Massive Contributions From US Commerce Secretary’s Old Firm

Published

on

US Housing Bill Bans CBDC Issuance Until 2030

The Fellowship political action committee (PAC), crypto’s newest lobbying player, recently unveiled in its first fundraising disclosure that it received $10 million dollars in contributions from Cantor Fitzgerald. 

The news came days after the group publicly endorsed candidates in six separate races ahead of the November midterm elections. 

The Tether Ties Fueling Fellowship PAC

The latest disclosure raised eyebrows, given Cantor Fitzgerald’s close connection with Howard Lutnick, the current US Secretary of Commerce. Before assuming office, Lutnick handed off leadership of his financial services firm to his sons.

The contribution also solidified the Fellowship PAC’s close links to tether. Earlier this month, BeInCrypto reported that the committee appointed Jesse Spiro as its Chairman. Spiro is also the Vice President of Regulatory Affairs at Tether US. 

Advertisement

Tether and Cantor Fitzgerald also have a tight relationship, as Cantor holds an ownership interest in Tether and is responsible for safeguarding a significant share of its reserve assets.

In addition to the contribution from Cantor Fitzgerald, Fellowship also received $1 million from the US-based institutional crypto platform, Anchorage Digital.

The disclosure marked the PAC’s first real move after seven months of silence since its formation in September. It arrived alongside a wave of endorsements that Fellowship rolled out on social media across six key races ahead of the midterms.

PAC Targets Key Republican Primary Races

On its X account, Fellowship unveiled a list of endorsed candidates, all of them Republicans.

Advertisement

The endorsements spanned congressional, senatorial, and gubernatorial races across Louisiana, South Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, and Nebraska.

Among those backed were Alan Wilson, the South Carolina governor candidate, and Pete Ricketts, the incumbent seeking to hold his Nebraska Senate seat. 

The PAC also threw its support behind Mike Collins for Georgia Senate, Nate Morris for Kentucky Senate, and two Louisiana candidates: Julia Letlow for Senate and Blake Miguez for House District 5.

Advertisement

According to crypto industry researcher Molly White, the Fellowship PAC directed $850,000 toward Nate Morris’ primary challenge against Andy Barr in the Kentucky Senate Republican race and $350,000 toward incumbent Nebraska Senator Pete Ricketts’ re-election bid.

White also flagged that Fellowship PAC funneled $4.5 million to NXUM Group— $3 million for issue advocacy advertising and $1.5 million for the production of ads backing the three campaigns. 

NXUM was co-founded by Bo Hines, the former director of Trump’s crypto advisory council, who is now CEO of Tether US.

The post Mysterious Crypto PAC Receives Massive Contributions From US Commerce Secretary’s Old Firm appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Crypto World

how it happened, and what it means for DeFi

Published

on

how it happened, and what it means for DeFi

A roughly $292 million exploit over the weekend has rattled the crypto industry, exposing vulnerabilities in decentralized finance (DeFi) infrastructure and raising concerns about knock-on effects across lending protocols.

While investigations are still ongoing, early analysis suggests the attack centered on Kelp’s rsETH token — a yield-bearing version of ether (ETH) — and the mechanism used to move assets between blockchains.

The attacker appears to have manipulated that system to create large amounts of tokens without proper backing, then quickly used them as collateral to borrow and drain real assets from lending markets, mostly from Aave , the largest decentralized crypto lender.

The incident is the latest blow to DeFi, happening only a couple weeks after the $285 million exploit of Solana-based protocol Drift, further denting investor trust in the nearly $90 billion crypto sector.

Advertisement

How the attack worked

At a high level, the exploit targeted a LayerZero bridge component — a piece of infrastructure that enables assets to move across different blockchains, Charles Guillemet, CTO of hardware wallet maker Ledger, told CoinDesk in a note.

Bridges typically work by locking assets on one chain and minting equivalent tokens on another. That process depends on a trusted entity — often called an oracle or validator — to confirm deposits.

In this case, Kelp effectively acted as that verifier. According to Guillemet, the system relied on a single-signer setup, meaning just one entity could approve any transactions.

“It seems the attacker was able to sign a message … allowing him to mint large amount of rsETH,” he said. He added that it remains unclear how that access was obtained.

Advertisement

Michael Egorov, founder of Curve Finance, pointed to the same weakness in the system’s configuration.

“Things can happen when you trust one single party — whoever that would be.”

That setup allowed the attacker to effectively create unbacked tokens, even though no corresponding assets were locked on the source chain.

Once minted, the tokens were quickly deployed. The attacker “immediately deposited them in lending protocols mostly Aave to borrow real ETH against,” Guillemet explained.

Advertisement

That maneuver shifted the problem from a single exploit into a broader market issue. DeFi lending platforms are now left holding collateral that may be difficult to unwind, while valuable and liquid assets are already drained.

“Aave was left with rsETH which cannot be really sold and maxborrowed [sic] ETH, so no one can withdraw ETH,” Curve’s Egorov said.

As a result, Aave and other lending protocols may be sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars in questionable collateral and bad debt, he warned, raising concerns of a potential “bank run” dynamic as users rush to withdraw funds.

Aave saw about a $6 billion drop in assets on the protocol as users yanked their assets following the incident. The token associated with the protocol was down about 15% over the past 24 hours’ trading.

Advertisement

What we still don’t know

Key questions remain around how the validator was compromised. The system relied on LayerZero’s official node, raising uncertainty over whether it was hacked, misconfigured or misled.

“Was it hacked? Was it fooled? We don’t know,” Egorov said.

The attacker’s identity is also unknown, though Guillemet said the scale of the attack suggests a sophisticated actor.

“Clearly not some script kiddies,” he said.

Advertisement

Big blow for trust in DeFi

Beyond the immediate losses, the exploit the episode serves as another reminder that as DeFi grows more interconnected, failures in one layer can quickly cascade across the system.

Egorov argued that non-isolated lending models, where assets share risk across pools, amplify the impact of such events.

He also pointed to shortcomings in how new assets are onboarded to lending platforms, saying configurations like Kelp’s 1-of-1 verifier setup should have been flagged earlier.

However, Egorov said there’s a silver lining. “Crypto is a harsh environment which no bank would have survived — yet we are working with that,” he said. “I think DeFi will learn from this incident and become stronger than before.”

Advertisement

Still, even as incidents like this lead to protocol upgrades and redesigns, they also chip away investor confidence in the broader DeFi sector.

“All in all, the trust into DeFi protocols is eroded by this kind of event,” Guillemet said.

“And 2026 will most likely be the worst year in terms of hacks, again,” he added.

Read more: ‘DeFi is dead’: crypto community scrambles after this year’s biggest hack exposes contagion risks

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Crypto World

Stablecoins Do Not Threaten Banking Just Yet: Analyst

Published

on

Stablecoins Do Not Threaten Banking Just Yet: Analyst

The impact of stablecoins on the banking sector appears “limited” at the current phase of the adoption cycle, but banks could face increasing competition and an erosion of market share as the stablecoin sector and tokenized real-world assets (RWAs) grow in market capitalization. 

“So far, the use of stablecoins remains limited, but their market capitalization exceeded $300 billion at the end of last year,” Abhi Srivastava, associate vice president of Moody’s Investors Service Digital Economy Group, told Cointelegraph.

The stablecoin market cap has surged past $300 billion. Source: RWA.xyz

The role of stablecoins in payments, cross-border commerce and onchain finance is “expanding,” despite their currently limited role, Srivastava said, adding that existing payment systems in the US are already “fast, low-cost and trusted.” He said:

“For the banking sector, at this stage, disruption risk appears limited. In the near term, US rules that prohibit stablecoins from paying yield mean they are unlikely to replace traditional deposits at scale domestically.”

However, over time, growing adoption of stablecoins and tokenized RWAs, traditional or physical financial assets represented on a blockchain by a token, could place “pressure” on the banking sector, leading to deposit outflows and reduced lending capacity, he said.

Stablecoin regulatory policy has become a hot-button issue among crypto industry executives and those in the banking sector, with fears that yield-bearing stablecoins could erode banking market share proving to be a stumbling block for the CLARITY crypto market structure bill in Congress. 

Advertisement

Related: Stablecoins behave like FX markets as liquidity splits: Eco CEO

CLARITY Act stalled, as banks fight yield-bearing stablecoins

The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025, also known as the CLARITY Act, is a comprehensive crypto market regulatory framework that establishes an asset taxonomy, regulatory jurisdiction and oversight over the crypto markets.

The CLARITY crypto market structure bill. Source: US Congress

It is now stalled in Congress after a group of crypto industry companies, led by cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase, publicly stated opposition to earlier drafts of the bill.

A lack of legal protections for open-source software developers and a prohibition on yield-bearing stablecoins were among some of the most contentious issues cited by crypto industry opponents of the legislation.

Several attempts have been made by US lawmakers and the White House to negotiate a bill acceptable to both the crypto industry and the bank lobby.

Advertisement

Earlier this month, North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis said he plans to release an updated draft bill proposal that would be acceptable to both sides; however, the bill has reportedly received pushback, according to Politico, and has yet to be publicly released. 

However, other crypto industry executives and market analysts have warned that if the CLARITY Act fails to pass, it could open the crypto industry up to future regulatory crackdowns by hostile lawmakers and officials.

Magazine: Stablecoins will see explosive growth in 2025 as world embraces asset class