- Mark Cuban announced on Thursday that he had divested 80% of his BTC portfolio, claiming that “Bitcoin has lost its point” as a hedge
- Adam Back, CEO of Blockstream, replied on Saturday: BTC plus 25-30% from the bottom, gold minus 14%, S&P 500 plus 11%
- Cuban looks at 12 months, Back at the last three. Everyone chooses a calendar for their thesis
- On Sunday, BTC rebounded to USD 76,900 after signals of a truce with Iran, Back’s calendar is getting even better
I’ve been waiting three years for a situation like this. A billionaire says publicly that he is selling bitcoins, another industry veteran responds with hard numbers, and the price in the background does exactly what undermines the first one’s thesis. Mark Cuban on one side, Adam Back on the other, with a full array of macro data for the last year between them. The choice is not obvious, but I think they both choose a convenient calendar.
Let’s break it down without a concession for either side.
What did Cuban actually say?
On Thursday, May 21, Mark Cuban appeared on the Front Office Sports podcast “Portfolio Players”. The topic was supposed to be the Dallas Mavericks, but the conversation turned to the investment portfolio. Cuban admitted that his cryptocurrency portfolio until early 2026 consisted of 60% Bitcoin, 30% Ethereum and 10% other assets. He sold about 80% of the bitcoins.
He arranged his justification logically.
- Argument number one: gold went to USD 5,000 per ounce, and BTC fell at the same time
- Argument number two: every time the dollar lost, BTC should have gained, and it did not
- Argument number three: According to Cuban, “BTC has lost its meaning.”
Cuban concluded that he still holds Ethereum because he sees its utility in DeFi and tokenization, and he described memecoins in one word: garbage.
An important detail. Cuban has described bitcoin as a “better version of gold” for years. He previously publicly declared that he had never sold a single coin. Selling 80% of the portfolio after such a public narrative is not a position correction. This is a change of thesis.
What Back replied
On Saturday, May 23, Adam Back, CEO of Blockstream and one of the cypherpunks referred to in the Bitcoin whitepaper, published a post on X with specific data.
Marc Cuban sold 80% of his Bitcoin because it didn’t act like a hedge during the Iran war. Gold hit $5,000. BTC dipped. He called it a disappointment and walked. But BTC is up 16%+ since the conflict started. He measured a 4-year asset by a 4-week window. That’s not analysis.
Adam Back@adam3usbitcoin is up 25-30% from the ~$60k bottom … vs S&P500 up 11%, DJIA up 5%. and gold fell -14%. so i don’t know what @mcuban is trying to say .. doesn’t line up with data unless he sold the bottom.
I quote Back’s answer directly: “Bitcoin is up 25-30% from the ~$60k bottom … vs S&P500 up 11%, DJIA up 5%. and gold fell -14%”. He added that if Cuban sees different numbers, “unless he sold at the bottom.”
Back’s logic goes like this. Since late February, when tensions with Iran began to escalate, bitcoin has risen 25-30% from a low of around $60,000. The S&P 500 Index returned 11% in the same window, the Dow Jones returned 5% and gold fell 14%. In this particular range, BTC has beaten all traditional asset classes, including gold, which Cuban defends.
Back also added a structural thesis. Bitcoin’s high Sharpe ratio, or return-to-volatility ratio, does not exist without this volatility. Fluctuations are the price paid for above-average rates of return in the long term. On Sunday, May 24, Back continued the thread with a new entry: “buy bitcoin, hodl, repeat”. Memecoins and altcoins priced at zero are only a matter of time, according to him.
Who is right
In my opinion, they are both manipulating the calendar. I will explain in a moment where this observation comes from.
Cuban chooses a twelve-month window. In this range, BTC fell by about 29% (from about $108,000 to $76,900) and gold rose from $3,295 to about $4,509 per ounce, or plus 37%. Cuban is right about the numbers on this calendar. Bitcoin has not behaved like a hedge over the last year.
Back chooses a window from the end of February. During this range, BTC rebounded from around $60,000 to $76,900, or plus 28%. Gold from around $5,200 to $4,509, or minus 13%. On this calendar, Back is right about the numbers. Bitcoin has performed better than gold in the last three months.
The problem is that both calendars are slices of a larger cycle. The one-year shows that BTC did not defend itself against the macroeconomic turmoil of early 2026. The three-month shows that in the selected window it looks good after the fact. None of these windows answer the question of whether bitcoin is a good hedge. It only answers the question whether he was in the selected range.
Sunday complicated matters
This is where things get interesting for Back and uncomfortable for Cuban. On Saturday evening, Donald Trump published an entry on Truth Social in which he announced that the agreement ending the twelve-month crisis with Iran had been “negotiated in principle.” Three conditions: stopping the nuclear program, opening the Strait of Hormuz, transfer of enriched uranium. Marco Rubio added from New Delhi that Iran may accept the proposal within a few days.
BTC touched $74,305 on Saturday, its lowest level since April 20. It rebounded to $76,900 on Sunday, plus 3% in 24 hours. At the same time, gold remained at around $4,509, without much movement. If the market is pricing in de-escalation, then BTC reacts and gold does not. This is exactly the scenario that Cuban, according to his own narrative, did not see.
Cuban sold on Thursday evening. BTC was trading at around $77,500 at the time. On Friday it fell to 75,800, on Saturday to 74,305, on Sunday it rebounded to 76,900. This means that Cuban sold three days before the local bottom and a few days before the potential growth catalyst. Back correctly noted: “unless he sold at the very bottom.”
What Cuban missed in his thesis
I believe Cuban is confusing two different questions. Question one: is bitcoin a good diversifier in a portfolio? Question two: is bitcoin a replacement for gold as a crisis asset? These are different questions.
Bitcoin as a diversifier: yes, it has a low correlation with bonds and not very high with gold. As a replacement for gold as a crisis asset: no, because it behaves like a risky technology asset, correlating with the Nasdaq and bond yields. These are two different roles. Cuban bought it with the second role in mind and was disappointed because he got the first role.
Ethereum, which Cuban still refers to, is not a hedge either. If BTC did not defend itself in the February turmoil, ETH fell even more. The decision “I’m staying with ETH because it has utility” makes business sense, not hedging sense. Cuban exchanges the role of a macro-fuse for the role of an investment tool for specific applications. It’s a fair change, but he should call it that and not blame it on BTC “losing meaning.”
What does this mean for you
Three applications for the Polish portfolio.
First, if you bought BTC under the slogan “digital gold protects against crisis”, the weekend showed the limits of this narrative. In the current phase of the cycle, Bitcoin reacts to US bond yields, the dollar, geopolitics with Iran and posts from Trump on Truth Social. This is not gold from 2008, but a risky asset from 2026 with great potential and high volatility. This variability must be accepted, not surprised by it.
Secondly, selling on a public floor is a classic mistake, no matter who you are. Cuban is worth ten billion dollars and has access to the world’s best analysts. He sold 80% of his position three days before the rebound and before the truce signal. This should serve as a warning to anyone who thinks that “timing” works better than “hold and buy on corrections.” Back’s argument about the Sharpe ratio comes down to a simple thing: if you can’t withstand the volatility, you won’t make money on the upside.
Third, in this discussion, look carefully at the time window in which someone presents the numbers. Cuban was right in 12 months, Back is right in 3 months. They both choose for their thesis. Your window is your investment horizon. If you’re buying for 10 years, the short-term variances are noise. If you are buying a 6-month macro thesis for a specific purpose, you must have this thesis well thought out and not taken from someone else’s podcast.
