Uncorrelated is the key word IMHO. And I wouldn't say it is liquid, but that's a good thing here IMHO too. A lot of asset management is for pensions. This mean

Uncorrelated is the key word IMHO. And I wouldn't say it is liquid, but that's a good thing here IMHO too. A lot of asset management is for pensions. This means that long term stability is quite important, and when designing portfolios negative or neutral correlations are highly desired (square deviation sigma goes down with weighted sum of correlation coefficients here [1]). One one hand all companies rely on energy, electricity and gas and oil. To transform matter, to transport goods. Despite being a few percent GDP, energy is a multiplier/enabler of economic activity. Electricity's price is also being defined at the margin by peaker gas plants. And gas price is also highly linked to oil. On the other hand, Bitcoins being mostly 'hodled' their price would be greatly defined by the block rewards. Which cost of is function of electrical scarcity. The highest the electricity price, the more it cost to produce the same amount of Bitcoin as per the consensus hash rate adjustments. It's not perfect analysis, and I have not crunched the numbers; but I would not be surprised for Bitcoin to have negative or neutral correlations to a lot of assets because of energy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory