Is Bitcoin Really an Inflation Hedge? — Testing Inflation Expectations and 30-Day Returns

---

Bitcoin is often described as an inflation hedge because its supply is fundamentally different from that of fiat currencies.

The maximum supply is capped at 21 million BTC, and new issuance follows a predefined schedule rather than decisions made by a central bank. This has led to the idea that Bitcoin could serve as a store of value when the purchasing power of fiat currencies declines.

That argument is economically plausible.

But there is an important distinction between why Bitcoin might be resistant to monetary debasement and whether Bitcoin has actually performed better when inflation expectations were high.

Those are not the same question.

To examine the second one, we looked at the historical relationship between market-based inflation expectations and Bitcoin’s subsequent returns.

For this analysis, we use the U.S. 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Rate.

The breakeven inflation rate is derived from the difference between nominal Treasury yields and inflation-protected Treasury yields. It is commonly used as a market-based measure of expected inflation over the coming years.

So this analysis is not asking:

Did Bitcoin rise when reported CPI was high?

Instead, the question is:

How did BTC/USD perform after markets had priced in different levels of future inflation?

The target asset is BTC/USD, and the prediction horizon is the subsequent 30-day return.

Unlike equities, Bitcoin trades continuously, including weekends. For BTC/USD, a 30-day horizon therefore corresponds roughly to one calendar month.

We first looked at the simple Pearson correlation between the 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Rate and BTC/USD’s subsequent 30-day return.

The correlation was approximately -0.23.

In other words, historically, higher inflation expectations tended to be associated with lower Bitcoin returns over the following 30 days.

That is already somewhat different from the simple narrative that higher inflation should automatically be positive for Bitcoin.

However, a single correlation coefficient does not tell us whether the relationship is linear or whether it changes at particular inflation levels.

For that, we need to look more closely at the distribution.

We divided the historical 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Rate into ten deciles and calculated the average subsequent 30-day BTC/USD return within each group.

The result was not a smooth downward relationship.

When breakeven inflation was between 1.74% and 1.91% (Q3), the average subsequent 30-day Bitcoin return was +19.85%.

Returns remained positive across much of the middle of the distribution:

• Q4: +9.22%
• Q5: +8.26%
• Q6: +9.67%
• Q7: +7.92%
• Q8: +6.75%

But the picture changed at the high end.

When the 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Rate reached 2.39% to 2.50% (Q9), the subsequent average Bitcoin return fell to -2.65%.

In the highest decile, 2.51% to 3.02% (Q10), the average subsequent return dropped further to -12.85%.

This matters because the result is more nuanced than either of these simple claims:

Higher inflation is good for Bitcoin.

The relationship appears to change depending on the level of inflation expectations.

The SHAP dependence analysis shows a similar nonlinear pattern.

SHAP values indicate how different factor values affected the model’s prediction relative to its baseline. They do not establish causality, but they can help reveal whether the relationship used by the model is linear, nonlinear, or threshold-like.

For the 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Rate, SHAP values were often positive through much of the lower and middle range.

But around 2.4% to 2.5%, the relationship changes noticeably.

Above that area, SHAP values move sharply into negative territory.

The important point is not that 2.5% is a permanent or universal threshold.

Rather, the historical data suggest that Bitcoin’s relationship with inflation expectations has not been linear. The high-inflation-expectation regime behaved differently from much of the middle range.

From this point onward, we move from observed data to interpretation.

One possible explanation involves monetary policy.

When inflation expectations rise too far, the Federal Reserve has less room to ease policy. Markets may begin to expect rates to remain higher for longer, or expected rate cuts may be pushed further into the future.

A simplified transmission mechanism could look like this:

Higher inflation expectations
→ Less room for rate cuts
→ Tighter financial conditions for longer
→ Less supportive liquidity conditions for risk assets

Bitcoin has a fixed supply schedule, but its market price does not exist independently of the broader financial system.

Interest rates, the U.S. dollar, liquidity, risk appetite, equity markets, and crypto-specific positioning can all affect BTC at the same time.

That means the relevant question may not simply be:

Is inflation good or bad for Bitcoin?

This interpretation is plausible, but the analysis here does not prove that monetary policy caused the observed Bitcoin returns.

As of the latest data used in this analysis, the U.S. 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Rate was approximately 2.32%.

That places it in Q7 of the historical distribution used here.

Historically, observations in Q7 were followed by an average 30-day BTC/USD return of +7.92%.

That does not mean Bitcoin is expected to rise 7.92% over the next 30 days.

The number simply describes the average subsequent return among historical observations that fell into the same breakeven-inflation range.

Bitcoin is influenced by many factors simultaneously, and the current market environment will never be identical to the historical average of one factor bucket.

The useful information here is the historical context, not a point forecast.

Bitcoin is often described as a hedge against inflation because of its fixed supply and resistance to discretionary monetary expansion.

But in this analysis, higher market inflation expectations did not correspond to systematically stronger Bitcoin returns.

The simple correlation between the 10-Year Breakeven Inflation Rate and BTC/USD’s subsequent 30-day return was negative.

The decile analysis showed relatively strong returns across parts of the low-to-middle inflation-expectation range, while returns deteriorated sharply in the highest two deciles.

SHAP analysis also suggested a meaningful change in the relationship around the 2.4%–2.5% area.

So the historical relationship was more complicated than:

Inflation rises, therefore Bitcoin rises.

Bitcoin may still have characteristics that make it attractive as protection against long-term monetary debasement. But short- and medium-term market performance also depends on how inflation affects interest rates, monetary policy, liquidity, and risk appetite.

A plausible investment narrative is a useful starting point.
The next step is to test whether the data actually support it.

FactDecode is an analysis environment for examining relationships between assets and factors through model importance, correlation with future returns, decile analysis, SHAP, and other perspectives.