Bitcoin Holds Ground as Gold, Silver Slide

Lead paragraph

On March 26, 2026, Coindesk reported a JPMorgan research note that positioned bitcoin as relatively steady while traditional precious metals — notably gold and silver — experienced price pressure tied to ETF outflows and strained liquidity conditions. The bank attributed the weakness in bullion markets to an institutional unwinding in combination with widening bid-ask spreads that have amplified volatility for physical-backed funds, whereas bitcoin ETPs showed comparatively steadier flows. That dichotomy has reopened discussions about cross-asset liquidity, market structure and the role of crypto products in institutional portfolios, particularly when geopolitical stress elevates liquidity premia. For allocators and market-structure analysts, the episode is notable because it underlines the potential for product-level frictions to drive asset-class returns independently of macro fundamentals.

Context

JPMorgan’s note, as reported by Coindesk on Mar 26, 2026, framed the recent move as a function of structural liquidity dynamics rather than a simple re-pricing of macro risk. Over the past 18 months, market participants have increasingly focused on ETP flows as a proximate driver of short-term price moves across both crypto and commodity-linked instruments; this note formalized that observation for precious metals. Gold and silver have long been instruments of safe-haven demand, but when concentrated holdings sit within ETFs and those ETFs experience outflows, the mechanical effects on market depth and settlement can be large. This development matters because it separates two different types of downside: fundamental (e.g., changes in real rates or demand) versus technical (e.g., ETF liquidity and flows).

The context is also geopolitical. JPMorgan highlighted that episodes of geopolitical stress can compress liquidity for physically settled instruments as custodial and delivery frictions increase; crypto ETPs, by contrast, have demonstrated quicker creation/redemption mechanisms in some jurisdictions, creating asymmetric responses. Historically, gold has outperformed during episodes of monetary-policy driven uncertainty; however, concentrated ETF ownership has periodically amplified sharp moves on redemption waves, as seen in prior stress episodes in 2013 and 2020. For institutional investors and risk managers, therefore, distinguishing product-level risk (ETF mechanics) from asset-level risk (inherent safe-haven properties) is increasingly critical.

LINK: For further methodological discussion on ETP flows and market structure, see our research hub topic.

Data Deep Dive

Coindesk’s March 26, 2026 report cited JPMorgan observations that precious-metals ETFs registered net outflows of approximately $1.1 billion in the recent two-week window, while bitcoin ETPs recorded net inflows of roughly $600 million over the same period (source: JPMorgan note, reported by Coindesk, Mar 26, 2026). The magnitude of those flows matters given the concentrated nature of metal holdings: a $1.1 billion outflow from a subset of gold and silver ETFs can translate into a material percentage of floating liquidity on a given day, increasing realized volatility. JPMorgan also flagged a notable widening in bid-ask spreads for certain physical gold products — on the order of 20–30% month-over-month — a sign that market-making capacity has thinned in stressed conditions (JPMorgan/Coindesk, Mar 26, 2026).

From a relative-performance standpoint, Coindesk’s coverage noted week-over-week moves with gold down an estimated 2.3% and silver down roughly 4.7% in the referenced period, while bitcoin was characterized as holding its ground with muted downside and 'improving momentum' per the bank’s phrasing (Coindesk, Mar 26, 2026). These percentage moves, when layered onto year-to-date returns, altered short-term risk-return trade-offs for multi-asset funds; for example, a 2–5% move in precious metals can meaningfully change covariance estimates used in portfolio optimization exercises. The data also suggest that correlation regimes are dynamic: during the most recent stress, correlations between bitcoin and traditional safe havens decoupled compared with historical averages observed in 2024–25.

Finally, transaction-level metrics reported by market data providers and summarized by JPMorgan indicate that average daily traded volume in major gold ETFs contracted by an estimated 15% during the month of March relative to February, whereas bitcoin ETP volumes expanded by approximately 8% in the same interval (source: JPMorgan/Coindesk, Mar 26, 2026). These directional, product-level shifts are consistent with the bank’s conclusion that liquidity dynamics — not purely fundamental demand changes — have been central to the recent price divergence.

Sector Implications

The immediate implication is that asset allocators should reassess execution and liquidity assumptions embedded in models. Many institutional frameworks assume that large-cap, liquid assets like gold ETFs will absorb flows without a step-function increase in market impact; the recent episode suggests that assumption no longer holds universally. For commodity desks and treasury functions, this raises operational questions about the speed of redemptions, the availability of in-kind settlement versus cash redemption, and the potential need for contingency liquidity buffers. Market-makers and prime brokers will also revisit capital allocation and quoting strategies if periods of thin depth become more frequent.

Crypto market participants — and custodians of bitcoin ETPs — will point to the steadier flows as evidence that product design and market access matter. In some jurisdictions, bitcoin ETPs have matured operationally: tighter spreads, more robust authorized participant networks, and faster creation/redemption cycles can blunt volatility in times of stress. However, it is important to note that product maturity varies across markets and that regulatory changes (for example, custody rules or leverage allowances) could materially change the resilience observed in early-2026. Investors evaluating cross-asset strategies will need to account for these heterogeneities.

Sector peers will also react differently: large sovereign and central-bank-level holdings continue to anchor gold's longer-term demand profile, even if short-term ETF flows cause price disruptions. Compared with major equities or fixed income benchmarks, precious metals now present a higher 'product concentration' risk because ETF balance sheets represent a dominant part of tradable inventory. That structural nuance should be front-and-center in any stress-testing or liquidity-scarcity scenario planning.

LINK: See our institutional primer on liquidity and product structure for further context topic.

Fazen Capital Perspective

At Fazen Capital we view the current divergence as a reminder that correlation and liquidity are regime-dependent and that product engineering can materially alter asset-class behavior. A contrarian — but evidence-driven — take is that periods when traditional safe havens exhibit outsized technical weakness may present opportunities to re-evaluate the hedging mix rather than to reflexively increase allocations to perceived alternatives. Specifically, if the weakness in gold and silver is primarily technical (ETF outflows and delivery frictions), then mechanically substituting in an asset because it held up in that particular episode risks overfitting to a single stress instance.

We further believe that market participants should not conflate steadier ETP flows into bitcoin with an absence of systemic risk: crypto markets remain sensitive to distinct liquidity and regulatory shocks (for example, custody or settlement interruptions). A more nuanced approach is to treat product-level liquidity as a separable risk factor in multi-asset models and to stress test across a range of outflow and market-making impairment scenarios. Operational readiness — including tested settlement and redemption protocols — will be as important as headline returns when calibrating allocations going forward.

Risk Assessment

Key risks emanate from three channels: (1) escalation of geopolitical events that further compress physical-delivery channels for metals; (2) regulatory interventions that alter the mechanics of crypto ETP creation/redemption; and (3) a rapid, correlated unwind across multiple ETF product classes that strains prime-broker and custody chains. Each channel has asymmetric consequences: for example, delivery frictions in gold could force physical sellers to source bullion in secondary markets at wider premia, while a sudden clampdown on authorized participants for crypto ETPs could reverse the recent resilience observed in bitcoin products.

Another material risk is model error — the risk that historical correlations used in portfolio construction become unreliable because product structure, not fundamentals, is driving returns. Institutional players that rely on historical covariance matrices without incorporating product-level liquidity variables may understate potential drawdowns. From a counterparty perspective, watchdogs should review concentration of authorized participants, issuer holdings, and intraday margining practices to reduce systemic spillovers.

Finally, the speed of information dissemination and algorithmic trading can amplify nominally small flows into outsized price moves when liquidity is thin. Execution desks should therefore re-calibrate market-impact assumptions and consider stepped, algorithmic execution or negotiated trades for large orders to mitigate signaling effects.

Outlook

Over the next quarter, monitoring three metrics will be important: net flows into major ETFs and ETPs, bid-ask spreads and market-depth measures for primary products, and any regulatory announcements affecting custody or settlement. If outflows from precious-metals ETFs stabilize and market-making capacity returns, the mechanical pressure on prices should ease; conversely, persistent outflows will likely increase realized volatility and could produce further negative returns for short windows. For bitcoin and crypto ETPs, continued inflows and intact creation/redemption mechanics would support the relative performance observed in late-March 2026, but the corridor is narrow and depends on operational continuity.

Institutional investors should embed scenario-based liquidity stress tests into allocation decisions and maintain clear execution playbooks. While cross-asset rebalances will occur, those actions should be guided by a framework that separates product structure risk from fundamental valuation drivers.

FAQ

Q: Could central-bank demand reverse the recent precious-metals weakness?

A: Historically, central-bank purchases have been a multi-year structural buyer for gold, but they operate on different time horizons than ETF flows. A sizable central-bank purchase program could underpin prices over quarters, yet it would not necessarily offset short-term technical dislocations caused by ETF redemptions and market-making stress. Operational frictions in custody and delivery would still need to be resolved to restore short-term depth.

Q: Does steadier bitcoin ETP flow imply lower systemic risk in crypto?

A: Not necessarily. Steadier flows in ETPs reflect current market structure and participant behavior; systemic risk in crypto depends on a broader set of factors, including custody resilience, regulatory clarity, counterparty exposures and the credit profile of market intermediaries. The two are related but not synonymous.

Bottom Line

JPMorgan’s March 26, 2026 observation that ETF outflows and liquidity strains have pressured gold and silver while bitcoin ETPs showed relatively steadier flows underscores the growing importance of product-level mechanics in price formation. Institutional participants should treat liquidity and product structure as distinct risk factors when calibrating allocations and execution strategies.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.