Bitcoin’s Copper-Gold Ratio Signal Fails, Defying Cycle Pattern

In a detailed 16-minute video analysis published on November 10, Chartered Market Technician Tony “The Bull” Severino presented a compelling case that Bitcoin’s most reliable macroeconomic indicator—the copper-to-gold ratio—has dramatically broken character. Severino frames this ratio as a “growth versus fear index,” where copper strength signals economic expansion, rising yields, and appetite for risk assets like Bitcoin, while gold outperformance maps to recession fears, falling yields, and risk-off behavior. “When gold is performing better than copper, it typically means economic slowdown [and] general recession fears,” Severino explained, emphasizing that copper’s industrial demand anchors the ratio directly to the business cycle.

The critical development, according to Severino’s analysis, is that the ratio’s cyclical turn—which historically coincided with Bitcoin’s vertical price phase—simply never arrived in the current cycle. After briefly producing a “higher high” in the ratio (the first since approximately 2010), copper-to-gold failed to establish a higher low and instead printed “another lower low.” This resulted in what Severino describes as the lowest reading in about 15 years on his chart—”since pretty much since the Great Recession.” The Fisher Transform signal that had historically flipped upward to confirm the risk-on window never delivered the full follow-through, leaving Bitcoin’s post-halving script in disarray.

Severino’s analysis fundamentally challenges the widely accepted four-year halving narrative that has dominated Bitcoin market commentary. He contends that the halving lore is “at best incomplete and at worst misattributed,” arguing that the true inflection point has historically been macroeconomic rather than supply-driven. “I never really thought it was the halving,” Severino stated, pointing out that “the same halving date started a bull run in the Nasdaq […] the halving in Bitcoin would not really have any effect on tech stocks.”

In Severino’s construction, the halving has merely coincided with, rather than caused, the ratio’s upswing and the risk-on impulse that typically propels Bitcoin beyond prior highs into its final, parabolic leg. This cycle has diverged sharply from this pattern. The Fisher Transform signal that should have confirmed the risk-on conditions failed to materialize fully. “It was supposed to send Bitcoin into the final stage of its parabolic rally […] we didn’t go parabolic after going above all-time high. We’re just kind of meandering sideways,” Severino observed, noting that Bitcoin traded at $104,486 at the time of his analysis.

The timing implications of this breakdown are significant. Severino measures roughly one year between the ratio’s historical go-signal and Bitcoin’s cycle top in prior episodes. By that yardstick, “we really should have topped” already or, if anchored to the March breakout above the 2021 high, would at least be entering a risk-off window. However, without the definitive risk-on impulse from the copper-gold ratio, the cycle landmarks have become blurred. “Because we didn’t get the full risk on, I don’t know where the risk off signal is,” Severino admitted, highlighting the uncertainty created by this divergence.

The implications extend crucially to altcoins and Bitcoin dominance patterns. Historically, the ratio’s green “risk-on” phase aligned perfectly with “alt season,” but this time the setup never materialized. “You normally get your alt season at these green points […] We didn’t get it here,” Severino said, noting that Bitcoin dominance is holding key support on higher-timeframe views. He also highlighted an “extremely strong negative correlation” between Bitcoin and the copper-gold ratio at present, whereas in past cycles, correlation drifting toward zero tended to coincide with altseason. “None of the conditions for altcoin season seem to be here based on past economic signals,” he concluded.

Despite the concerning signals, Severino stops short of making a deterministic call. The ratio’s trend structure remains ambiguous—one failed breakout from a long downtrend does not necessarily establish a new uptrend—and the Fisher signal could still turn. However, until sustained improvement appears, he argues the macro environment demands caution. “We’re still in the fear sort of side of this ratio. We need to still be defensive and we should be risk off. When this starts to turn back up, we can consider being bullish risk assets again.” This ambiguity, he suggests, explains why Bitcoin’s post-all-time-high drift has defied the well-worn four-year narrative: “It just didn’t do the same thing as it did in the past […] We are different. It is genuinely different this time.”