Every other view here asserts that some macro channel matters to Bitcoin. This one asks whether any of that is currently true, by measuring how much of the weekly movement the macro channels together account for.

It is the view that tells you when to close the others. A low reading does not mean the relationships described elsewhere are wrong; it means they are not what is moving the price this month.

What it actually measures

The reading is a share, so it answers how much rather than how often. Two series can agree on direction most weeks while accounting for very little of the actual movement, and this separates those cases.

It is measured over a rolling stretch of history, so it describes a period rather than a day. A single week of macro-driven trading will not move it, and a whole season of the same behaviour will.

Weekly is the natural frequency. The underlying series publish weekly or monthly, and a faster comparison would largely be measuring the gap between publications rather than anything economic.

How much explains is not the same question as which way it points

The same high number describes macro dragging the price down and macro carrying it up, depending entirely on which way the underlying conditions happen to be moving. The reading cannot tell those apart and does not try.

That confusion is the usual mistake here. The reading answers how much, not which way, and the which way has to be taken from the individual channels, all of which are available on their own.

What it does not tell you

Attribution is not causation. A macro composite accounting for much of the movement is consistent with both driving price and responding to the same conditions.

The window cuts both ways. A long stretch is needed for the measurement to mean anything and that same length makes it slow to register a genuine change of regime, so a real decoupling takes months to show up here.

The channels are a choice. A composite built from three transmission channels is a claim about which ones matter, and a different reasonable choice would give a different reading. Nothing here tests whether the right channels were picked.

How to read it

MACRO DRIVEN. Price is behaving like a macro asset, which makes the rest of these views the right place to look.

MIXED. Macro accounts for part of the move and something else accounts for the rest.

DECOUPLED. Macro is accounting for very little of what is currently happening.

Macro Grip belongs to the Macro dashboard, along with Net Liquidity, Inverse DXY and Real Yields.

Common questions

What is the number?

The share of Bitcoin’s weekly movement that the macro channels together account for, measured across a rolling stretch of history and shown as a percentage.

Is a high score good news?

It is neither. The number answers how much, never which way. The same reading with conditions worsening describes macro dragging the price lower.

Why measure it weekly?

Because the inputs themselves only arrive weekly or monthly. Comparing them day by day would mostly capture the flat stretch between one release and the next, which is arithmetic rather than economics.

What does a low reading mean for the other views?

That they are not currently the explanation. The relationships they describe hold over long horizons; a low reading says something else is setting the price this season.

Why fixed levels rather than a ranking?

Because a share of movement already means something on its own, without needing history for context. Ranking against the past would call a weak reading strong simply because the surrounding years happened to be weaker.