During the COVID-19 pandemic, Mark Cuban disclosed in a program that he held Bitcoin and regarded it as one of the “few noteworthy crypto assets” in his asset portfolio. To some extent, he was one of the celebrity endorsements in that round of the “digital gold” narrative. Six years later, the roles have reversed: On May 24, 2026, media outlets like Forbes reported that Cuban confirmed in a recent interview that he had sold the portion of Bitcoin he publicly disclosed years ago and no longer gives this asset any leeway—in his view, Bitcoin has not demonstrated the “anti-inflation” and “digital gold” properties it has been marketed with for years. More glaring is the timing: In October 2025, Bitcoin had just reached an all-time high of about $126,000, but by late May 2026, its price had fallen about 40% from that peak, hovering between $76,000 and $77,000, having dropped another roughly 10% in the past week or two; the market has begun to quietly discuss whether a deep correction similar to that of 2022 could be repeated. The contrast Cuban highlighted is akin to a heavy blow—during a period of geopolitical tensions like the Iran War, the dollar weakened, and gold soared, responding as traditional safe-haven assets do, while Bitcoin fell instead. This led him to conclude that the inflation hedge and risk premium attached to Bitcoin by the market not only lack real-world support but even completely fail at critical moments. Thus, a former bull has publicly turned against Bitcoin, throwing the question back to all investors who still bet on this narrative: after macro shocks have already given a round of “real-world testing,” whether the inflation hedge premium that Bitcoin once enjoyed is simply temporarily misaligned or is being systematically stripped away has become one of the most core variables for macro traders to observe next.

Collapse of Digital Gold: Price Divergence During the Iran War

The Iran War is seen by the market as a typical geopolitical risk shock: warfare escalates, safe-haven sentiment rises, the dollar weakens, and gold rises according to textbook predictions. The glaring detail Cuban pointed out is that during the same timeline, Bitcoin did not follow gold's ascent but chose to decline instead. This is not a scenario of one or two “unexpected” candlesticks; rather, it is a structural divergence where Bitcoin moves opposite to gold in the backdrop of a weakening dollar, which should have benefited dollar-denominated safe-haven assets. For macro funds betting on “digital gold,” this scene represents a real-time stress test: the true beneficiaries of geopolitical safe-haven and inflation hedge premiums remain gold bars, not the string of numbers on the blockchain.

The result is that the coordinates of risk preference have been redrawn. During the Iran War stage, the pricing logic of gold increasingly resembled that of a pure safe-haven position, while Bitcoin, in the market, appeared closer to a high-beta risk asset: as geopolitical unrest and macro uncertainties rose, gold gained a premium, while Bitcoin was sold off along with it, amplifying its correlation with the stock market in traders' eyes and discounting its correlation to gold. Cuban's questioning of the “digital gold” narrative through this performance essentially points to a revaluation process currently underway—originally, the inflation hedge and geopolitical risk premium attached to Bitcoin are being reallocated back to gold, and whether Bitcoin can reclaim this premium has now become one of the core observation variables for macro traders going forward.

From Pandemic Bottom Fishing to Liquidation: Reversal Signal in Cuban's Personal Ledger

During the COVID-19 pandemic, as a billionaire investor and the owner of the Dallas Mavericks, Cuban chose to side with Bitcoin—not only publicly disclosing his purchases and viewing it as an “important crypto asset” in his personal asset allocation but also frequently endorsing this new asset class in public forums. The macro environment at that time was characterized by zero interest rates, loose monetary policies, and rising inflation expectations, with Bitcoin being packaged as a “digital gold” to hedge against currency depreciation. Cuban's endorsement helped propel this narrative into the broader context of mainstream investors. Five years later, as Bitcoin fell about 40% from its high of approximately $126,000 in October 2025, hovering in the $76,000–$77,000 range by late May 2026, and recently dropping another 10%, with the market once again discussing if a repeat of the deep correction seen in 2022 could occur, the same Cuban stepped forward and stated on camera: he had already sold the part of Bitcoin he had publicly disclosed during the pandemic, and what he now questions is precisely the “anti-inflation” and “digital gold” labels he had helped amplify back then.

Media outlets like Forbes reported extensively on this statement from Cuban on May 24, 2026, viewing it as a significant reversal of his position, and he himself provided a ranking among assets in the same instance: he was “more disappointed” in Bitcoin; he was “not as disappointed” in Ethereum; and for most other lesser-known coins and meme coins, he simply referred to them as “garbage.” This layered evaluation essentially rewrites the risk narrative for mainstream crypto assets in public—Bitcoin is no longer seen as a macro hedge tool in his eyes, but rather as a high-volatility asset that has not delivered on its promises; Ethereum, though also under pressure, retains some narrative space in his mind; while the vast majority of minor tokens have been completely excluded from his investment universe. For retail investors, one of the representatives of “pandemic bottom fishing” has flipped his ledger from long-term holding to liquidation and denied Bitcoin's inflation hedge functionality, which will weaken their confidence in the belief that “as long as there are macro risks, Bitcoin will naturally rise”; for institutions that have already included Bitcoin in their asset allocation memos, reflexive narratives from celebrity investors like Cuban will further compress Bitcoin's weight as a macro insurance in portfolios, leading more to view it as a risk asset synchronized with the stock market rather than a hedge position. Cuban's transformation from pandemic bottom-fisher to liquidation critic is becoming an important sample for the market to test the resilience of Bitcoin's macro narrative.

New Consensus After 40% Retracement: Inflation Hedge Premium Discounted

As the price retreated from about $126,000 to the $76,000–$77,000 range, accumulating a approximately 40% drop, and on top of that, the additional decline of around 10% in the last week or two, the “inflation hedge premium” on Bitcoin is being gradually wiped out by the market. More glaring is the comparison: during periods of geopolitical tension and dollar weakening, such as the Iran War, gold has risen, while Bitcoin has demonstrated a downward trend. This divergence from traditional safe-haven asset movements makes Cuban's references to “anti-inflation” and “digital gold” narrative appear pale. The dual contrast of price curves and macro performance essentially indicates that the market is discounting this narrative—what was originally embedded in the price and corresponded to “macro insurance” valuation is being relabeled as ordinary risk premium, and Bitcoin in the minds of investors has shifted from a tool that “can support during crises” back to a high-volatility asset that “rises fast but falls hard.”

Once this layer of premium begins to unravel, the role within investment portfolios shifts accordingly: Bitcoin is no longer simply categorized as a “gold-like allocation,” but is increasingly categorized alongside risk assets similar to the stock market and growth stocks. For institutions, this means it no longer enjoys the hedge position's “exemption” on the balance sheet, and must accept strict risk budgeting based on volatility, drawdown, and liquidity; for traders, Bitcoin's future performance will depend more on overall market liquidity and sentiment, rather than whether macro variables such as inflation or geopolitical conflicts can provide an additional “insurance fee.” Going forward, whether Bitcoin appears more like gold or like high-beta stocks in the next round of macro shocks will determine whether it can find a new, stable pricing position in the global asset allocation framework after this inflation hedge premium discount is applied.

After Bitcoin's Fall from Favor: Divergence of Ethereum and High-Risk Tokens' Fate

When Cuban publicly admitted that he is “more disappointed in Bitcoin than in Ethereum,” the focus of the narrative has been moved by him personally. Bitcoin has retraced about 40% from its high of around $126,000 and dropped another 10% in the last week or two and has been questioned by him for failing to deliver on the promise of “anti-inflation” and “digital gold” during the Iran War and the dollar's weakening, which effectively discounts the macro hedge premium. In contrast, his emphasis on not being “as disappointed” in Ethereum means that in the context of macro hedges failing, the market may grant more patience to those assets with “application stories”—even if they are no longer expected to provide added inflation insurance, they can be viewed as risk positions linked to specific use cases and potential cash flows, rather than mere carriers of scarcity narratives.

However, Cuban simultaneously categorizes “most niche cryptocurrencies and meme coins” directly as “garbage,” drawing a thicker dividing line in the spectrum of risk: on one end are established assets like Bitcoin, which have suffered in macro stories and seen price retractions from highs, while on the other end are mainstream assets like Ethereum that are still viewed by some institutions as “application chips,” with high-risk tokens named by him lying in between. For fund flows, this discourse will emotionally drive “deleveraging”: some funds initially betting on Bitcoin’s inflation hedge may instead reallocate within mainstream assets—reducing their holdings in Bitcoin, reallocating to a few leading tokens like Ethereum; while others may simply retreat to cash or more collateral-like assets, shrinking their overall crypto exposure. Within this framework, the overall risk preference of the entire crypto market leans closer to a structural adjustment: a relative value game playing out among the leading assets, while long-tail high-risk tokens face dual pressure from liquidity withdrawal and valuation discounting.

After the Celebrity Narrative Breaks: How Crypto Markets Reprice Risk

Cuban’s May 24, 2026, “defection,” amplified by media like Forbes, combined with Bitcoin's underperformance compared to gold during the Iran War and dollar weakening, reveals visible cracks in the “digital gold, anti-inflation” narrative accumulated over the past few years: on one side, gold continues to rise amidst geopolitical tensions and dollar pullbacks; on the other side, Bitcoin has retraced about 40% from its high of approximately $126,000 in October 2025 and dropped about 10% in the last week or two, leading the market to naturally begin retagging these assets. The result is that Bitcoin is being reclassified into the category of high-volatility risk assets, with its inflation hedge and safe-haven premiums compressed, pricing anchors reverting from “grand narratives” to simpler macro liquidity and risk preferences: when dollar liquidity tightens or risk assets overall cool down, it is regarded as a position more similar to high-beta stocks rather than “digital gold,” which can automatically absorb panic funds. In this repricing process, Cuban's differentiated stance of being “not as disappointed” in Ethereum and labeling most niche tokens as “garbage” further reinforces asset stratification within the market: a few leading varieties compete for limited narratives and funds, while long-tail tokens face higher discounting demands. What remains to be tracked is whether the correlation between Bitcoin and gold, the stock market continues to converge towards the risk asset side, whether prices still weaken along with safe-haven logic during future inflation hikes or geopolitical shocks, and whether more large funds and institutions will publicly lower the macro positioning of Bitcoin like Cuban, thereby completely rewriting its role in global asset portfolios in the next cycle.

Join our community to discuss together and become stronger!
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
Exclusive Hyperliquid benefits from AiCoin: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
Exclusive Aster benefits from AiCoin: https://www.asterdex.com/zh-CN/referral/9C50e2

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。