How FOMC Decisions Shape Bitcoin

How FOMC Decisions Shape Bitcoin

India Crypto Research Brief

The Fed held rates steady at its latest FOMC meeting. Nothing new there. But the market reaction was telling. It pointed to a growing gap between what monetary policy is doing and what Bitcoin is actually doing. For most of the last cycle, softer rate expectations meant higher Bitcoin. Not this time. Rates are easing, and Bitcoin is still weak. So liquidity clearly isn't the only thing driving this asset anymore.

Rewind to October 2025. India Crypto Research Brief #7 looked at where Bitcoin stood after the Fed's rate cuts and the US government shutdown. Three things to watch, it said. Real rates. Global money supply. Institutional flows. Ten months on, all three have moved. And Bitcoin still went down.

So what's actually happening here?

Where We Left Off

Fed cycles and Bitcoin's return

Before 2020, rate policy and Bitcoin barely spoke to each other. Big institutional money hadn't shown up yet, so Fed moves didn't really touch it. Bitcoin ran on its own logic.

That changed after 2020. Bitcoin now trades like a risk asset. Cuts tend to help, hikes tend to hurt. But it's not that simple. The reason for the cut matters as much as the cut itself. A cut that reads as “we're supporting growth” tends to lift Bitcoin. A cut that reads as “the economy is in trouble” can push it the other way, even though it's the same 25 basis points on paper. Rate policy and Bitcoin are tied together now. That link wasn't there before.

Real rates, not headline rates

Here's the part people skip. What actually matters for an asset like Bitcoin, which pays no yield, is the real return on safe alternatives like Treasuries. A fall in real yields means a fall in the cost of holding Bitcoin instead.

The catch is that a nominal rate cut only lowers real rates if inflation doesn't rise and eat the difference. Keep that in mind, because it does a lot of the heavy lifting below.

Bitcoin and global money supply

Bitcoin has usually followed global M2 with roughly a twelve-week lag. More cash sitting in the system, more of it eventually spills into Bitcoin. This is a pattern, not a one-off. You can see it around past run-ups.

​

Fed funds rate (midpoint) and Bitcoin price at each FOMC meeting, Jan 2021–Jul 2026. The 2022 hiking cycle and the 2024 cuts both moved BTC in the expected direction; the Sep–Dec 2025 cuts did not.

The Test Case: Autumn 2025

Here's where it gets interesting. The Fed cut rates three times back to back between September and December 2025, from 4.00–4.25% down to 3.50–3.75%. By the book, that should have been bullish. Instead, Bitcoin dropped from roughly $115,000 to $87,500 over that window, and kept sliding into mid-2026.

The framework failed its own test case.

Six Reasons the Correlation Comes Apart

None of this means the original framework was wrong. It means the relationship weakens or inverts sometimes, for documented reasons, and several of those reasons were firing at once during this stretch.

1. The lag isn't fixed; it's elastic. Twelve weeks isn't a constant. Rolling 180-day correlations between Bitcoin and lagged M2 have swung wildly since 2021, from around +0.95 (near perfect alignment) to around -0.90 (moving in opposite directions). When the correlation looks dead, it's often just parked at a different point in its normal swing. This isn't new.
2. Headline M2 hides offsetting liquidity moves. M2 is a stock number. It says nothing about whether the Treasury is draining cash out of the market at the same time. Through late 2025, the US Treasury issued around $500 billion in bonds to rebuild its General Account toward $1 trillion. That's a liquidity drain running alongside, and partly cancelling out, headline M2 growth. M2 can rise on paper while real market liquidity is actually shrinking.
3. Bitcoin's ownership base has changed. Spot ETFs, corporate treasuries, institutional desks. They now own a much bigger slice of Bitcoin than they used to. Which means price action increasingly tracks how risk assets reposition broadly, tied to tech stock sentiment and ETF flow direction, not one clean liquidity variable. More owners, more competing explanations for the same move.
4. More liquidity conduits, not just M2. Stablecoin issuance. ETF creation and redemption. Options positioning. None of this existed at scale a few years ago, and all of it moves money now. Blaming M2 alone ignores how much liquidity flows through these other channels today.
5. Diminishing sensitivity as market cap grows. Bitcoin's market cap is roughly 10 times what it was in 2020. The same dollar of new system liquidity is a much smaller slice of the total now, so its price impact per dollar of M2 growth has mechanically shrunk. Simple math, really.
6. A leverage shock reset the market independent of the Fed. On 10 October 2025, a tariff-related shock wiped out roughly $19 billion in leveraged positions, the biggest deleveraging event the market has seen, most of it longs. That kind of event scars market structure for months. It doesn't care what the Fed is doing at the same time.

​

Bitcoin price, Sep 2025–Jul 2026, with the three rate cuts and the structural shocks that coincided with them. The mechanism and the shocks were pulling in opposite directions.

A Genuine Disagreement, Not a Settled Question

Not everyone reads this the same way. Fidelity Digital Assets' January 2026 outlook still backs the M2 relationship, arguing Bitcoin's fixed supply lets it absorb liquidity better than other assets over a full cycle. Others see the divergence as a warning, pointing to earlier periods where Bitcoin and M2 decoupled and prices fell hard afterward. A smaller group chalks it up to one-off factors unique to this window, hard to prove either way.

The divergence itself isn't up for debate. What it means next is.

What to Watch Next

The three variables from the original brief still matter. They just need updating. Real rates hinge on whether inflation cools enough for nominal cuts to actually pull real yields down. Money supply needs to be read net of Treasury General Account moves, not off the headline print. And institutional flows remain the clearest near-term tell; a sustained reversal of the ETF outflow streak would be the strongest sign the supportive channel is reopening, regardless of what the Fed does next.

Real Reason

Bitcoin didn't fail the framework in autumn 2025. The framework was never a formula to begin with. It's a set of forces that sometimes line up and mostly don't. For four years, enough of them pointed the same way often enough that watching the Fed alone felt like it was working. Autumn 2025 was simply when they stopped agreeing.

That's not a reason to throw the model out. It's a reason to stop treating it like a switch you can flip. Next time a rate cut lands and Bitcoin doesn't move the way the chart says it should, don't ask why the correlation broke. Ask which of the other forces is winning right now. Bitcoin and these forces are always interacting, and that question always has an answer. It's just rarely the same answer twice. Which is exactly why this market is worth watching, not modelling.