On September 6, 2026, crypto analyst Willy Woo threw out a familiar yet dangerous metaphor in a new post: Bitcoin is "decoupling" again, deviating from the curve of the U.S. stock market, and the degree of this decoupling is already approaching what he remembers from 2015. At that time, the stock market of 2014 was still progressing rapidly, while Bitcoin walked through a bear market on its own; by 2015 to 2016, the stock market began to fluctuate weaker, while Bitcoin slowly accumulated momentum at a low level, ultimately breaking into the mainstream market in 2017, delivering a super bull market that would be written into industry history. The current moment, in Woo's view, is precisely the mirror of that historical period: Bitcoin's liquidity is accelerating growth while the U.S. stock market is beginning to show structural weakness, all occurring under the macro shadows of intertwined interest rates, inflation, and geopolitical tensions, with the market constantly worried about economic recession and tightening liquidity. The question thus becomes more suspenseful—against a much more complex backdrop than in 2015, will this time of Bitcoin decoupling from U.S. stocks open the door to a new bull market, as it did in the last cycle, or will it be dragged back onto the same trajectory of rise and fall with the stock market amidst the next macro shock?
How the 2015 Split Caused a Bull Market
To understand what Woo means by "2015-style decoupling," one must rewind back to 2014. That year, the global stock market was still continuing its bull market pace, with indices steadily rising and sentiment leaning optimistic. But on the same timeline, Bitcoin seemed to have independently pressed the "bear market" button, with prices continuously declining, completely out of sync with the enthusiasm of the stock market. This was not simply a case of "more drops than rises," but rather a round of bear market that was almost unrelated to the stock market, allowing early holders to intuitively feel for the first time that Bitcoin could move independently of traditional assets.
The true misalignment occurred in the subsequent years of 2015 to 2016. In Woo's retrospective, the stock market was primarily in a state of fluctuating weakness or even bearish during these two years, with the one-sided upward trend of the bull market repeatedly replaced by pulls and corrections, and the sentiment of funds shifted from greed to hesitation. During this phase when traditional assets "stood still to catch their breath," Bitcoin quietly completed its shift from bear to bull: starting from the lows of the previous year, it gradually climbed out of the bottom range, entering a longer-lasting upward channel, laying the groundwork for the later explosion. By 2017, this prematurely initiated upward curve was finally seen by the entire market, and Bitcoin ushered in the well-known bull market, with prices soaring, while during the same period, the stock market also regained strength, and the strong performances of the two overlapped once again—first decoupled, then each followed its own cycle, and finally reconvened at the highs. This is, in Woo's view, the complete trajectory of how that "split caused a bull market."
From Leveraged Nasdaq to a Turning Point of Independent Trends
If the 2014–2017 round was a misaligned bull market of "Bitcoin leading, stocks lagging," then 2020–2021 was almost the opposite script. In this bull market, Bitcoin's price curve was tightly attached to the Nasdaq index, with every amplification of sentiment in tech stocks resulting in even more violent price fluctuations for Bitcoin—the label "leveraged Nasdaq" was called out by the market at that time. For investors back then, Bitcoin no longer moved out of an independent timeline as it did in 2015, but resembled more of a multiplier of risk appetite for tech stocks, gradually being categorized as part of a basket of high-volatility risk assets.
The moment that truly nailed this impression into the market memory was when the Fed entered an aggressive rate hike cycle in 2022: liquidity was quickly withdrawn, and both the U.S. stock market and Bitcoin almost simultaneously turned downward, declining in highly synchronized movements, further reinforcing the consensus that "this is merely a higher beta risk asset." It is precisely against this backdrop that the "decoupling again" that Woo speaks of becomes particularly striking—on one hand, he emphasizes that the liquidity in the Bitcoin market is continuously strengthening, while on the other, he points out that the U.S. stock market is beginning to show signs of weakness, suggesting that the roles between assets seem to be quietly swapping. Although current public data do not provide specific correlation coefficients or precise time windows for this decoupling, in Woo's narrative, from the former "leveraged Nasdaq" to the current attempt to break free from the rhythm of the stock market, Bitcoin is turning from a highly synchronized track to a more independent trend path.
Liquidity Inflow: Bulls Sketching the Blueprint for an Independent Bull Market
In Woo's narrative, this round of decoupling is first written in the flow of liquidity: he believes that the buying power and depth on the Bitcoin side are continuously recovering, resembling more of a "blood replenishment period" before entering an early bull market, while in contrast, the U.S. stock market is beginning to reveal weakness and fragility—not a sudden collapse, but rather stagnation, repeatedly under pressure like before 2015. He deliberately adjusts the atmosphere between assets: previously, the stock market dominated sentiment, with Bitcoin tagged purely as a "risk asset" following its fluctuations; now, the liquidity in Bitcoin is warming up, while the stock market seems feeble, which in his view is precisely the prelude to an independent trend.
To give this prelude a "historical reference" persuasive power, Woo directly pins the current structure to the "2015-style" node. He recalls a previous similar scene: between 2015 and 2016, Bitcoin and the stock market clearly decoupled, with the former's liquidity and price structure strengthening first while the latter hovered in a weak fluctuating state, followed by the well-known bull market of 2017. Based on this template, he views the discussions about the new cycle triggered by the halving in 2024 as another piece of the puzzle—halving provides a rhythm point in time, while decoupling and liquidity enhancement are seen as structural signals triggering the new trend. Thus, a bullish logical chain is constructed: from "decoupling again" to "liquidity inflow," to "possible eve of a bull market," Woo uses this historical analogy to reshape Bitcoin from a risk asset that passively follows to a candidate for an independent asset that has the opportunity to lead its own cycle.
The Macro Clouds Have Not Dispersed, Bears Warn Decoupling Won't Last
At the same time as Woo constructs a bullish narrative with "decoupling again," research briefs also record another completely different clue: some market participants view this drop in correlation as noise rather than a new paradigm. They remind that the current macro environment is not comparable to that of 2015—high interest rates, fluctuating inflation expectations, and recurring geopolitical frictions; these variables often tighten liquidity or change risk appetites at crucial moments, twisting Bitcoin and the stock market back onto the same rope. If macro events at a level similar to that of 2022 were to occur, the probability of rising correlations or even "returning to the mean" would not be lower than continuing to decouple.
Critics also target the storyline of "a singular four-year halving cycle." Research briefs mention that some analysts believe that explaining Bitcoin's price behavior solely based on halving is an oversimplification; this view primarily comes from individual channels and has not formed a statistical consensus. In contrast, another group of observers attempts to frame Bitcoin's price path within a traditional financial debt cycle of 6 to 8 years, which also belongs to a contentious perspective rather than a conclusion. In their view, the halving rhythm, macro debt cycle, and overall valuation fluctuations of risk assets intertwine far more complexly than a smooth four-year curve, especially when research briefs also indicate that the correlation readings calculated from different time windows can vary significantly, allowing either side to select favorable intervals to support their positions. For these bears or cautious parties, what truly needs attention is not which link in Woo's bullish chain will fail first, but the moment the market gets jolted back to reality while continuing a linear extrapolation based on a singular historical sample under a complex macro environment.
Walking the Tightrope Between Historical Bets and Risk Defense
Thus, bulls and bears read completely different stories from the same chart: bulls view the "increased liquidity + vulnerability of U.S. stocks" that Woo mentions as a rehash of the 2015 script, asserting that the 2024 halving has pushed Bitcoin into a new supply rhythm, and this decoupling is merely the overture of an independent bull market; bears focus on the differences between the macro environment and that of 2015, emphasizing that variables such as interest rates, inflation, and geopolitics are layered, suggesting that Bitcoin is merely swaying in a larger cycle, and the notion of "reenacting 2015–2017" is just imposing a simple template on a complex reality. Standing in the present, the most challenging aspect is: every round of Bitcoin's major cycles is often only named in hindsight, and we can neither confirm being at the starting point of a new bull market nor confirm if halving logic will override macro fluctuations, which means that whether betting on the "halving cycle" or the "macro cycle," we are implicitly assuming a whole string of premise assumptions. For readers, what is more practical is not to take sides, but, when referencing historical comparisons like 2015–2017, to proactively include the possibility of macro risks and correlation returning in the script, using sentiment to understand the enthusiasm of bulls, using data to assess the warnings of bears, and then, acknowledging our unclear view of the entire cycle, utilizing position sizes and risk hedges, to weigh the bets on historical reenactment against the defense of macro fluctuations on the same chessboard.
Join our community, let’s discuss, and become stronger together!
Exclusive Hyperliquid benefits for AiCoin: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
Exclusive Aster benefits for AiCoin: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
