XRP researcher Ripple Bull Winkle has stressed that new XRP ETFs will require millions of XRP to meet demand. In his commentary, he argued that the public “won’t realize what happened until it’s too late”.
Many in the crypto space have echoed a familiar sentiment over recent months: “The four-year crypto market cycle is dead.” Experts from the Bull Theory assert that while the four-year cycle may have come to an end, the Bitcoin bull run itself is merely delayed and could stretch until 2027.
In a recent post on social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, the Bull Theory analysts noted that the concept of Bitcoin adhering to a neat four-year cycle is weakening.
They highlighted that significant price movements over the last decade weren’t solely driven by Halving events; rather, they were influenced by shifts in global liquidity.
The analysts pointed to the current landscape of stablecoin liquidity, which remains high despite recent downturns, indicating that larger investors are still engaged in the market, poised to invest when appropriate macroeconomic conditions arise.
In the US, Treasury policies are emerging as pivotal catalysts. The recent buybacks are notable, but the analysts emphasize that the larger narrative lies in the Treasury General Account (TGA) balance, which is currently around $940 billion—almost $90 billion above its normal range.
This surplus cash is likely to flow back into the financial system, enhancing financing conditions and adding liquidity that typically gravitates toward risk assets.
Globally, the trends appear even more promising. China has been injecting liquidity for several months, while Japan recently announced a stimulus package worth approximately $135 billion, alongside efforts to simplify cryptocurrency regulations.
Canada is also moving toward easing its monetary policy, and the US Federal Reserve (Fed) has officially halted its quantitative tightening (QT) measures—a historical precursor to some form of liquidity expansion.
The analysts explained that when major economies adopt expansive monetary policies simultaneously, risk assets like Bitcoin tend to respond more rapidly than traditional stocks or broader markets.
Additionally, potential policy tools, such as the Supplementary Leverage Ratio (SLR) exemption—implemented in 2020 to allow banks more flexibility in expanding their balance sheets—could return, resulting in increased credit creation and overall market liquidity.
There is also a political dimension to consider. President Trump has discussed potential tax reforms, including abolishing income tax and distributing $2,000 tariff dividends.
Furthermore, the likelihood of a new Federal Reserve chair who supports liquidity assistance and is constructive toward cryptocurrency could bolster conditions for economic growth.
Extended Bitcoin UptrendHistorically, whenever the Institute for Supply Management’s Purchasing Managers’ Index (ISM PMI) surpasses 55, it has been followed by periods of altcoin season. The probability of this occurring in 2026 appears high, according to the Bull Theory.
The convergence of rising stablecoin liquidity, the Treasury’s injection of cash back into markets, global quantitative easing, the cessation of QT in the US, potential bank-lending relief, pro-market policy shifts in 2026, and major players entering the crypto sector suggests a very different scenario than the old four-year halving model.
The analysts concluded that if liquidity expands concurrently across the US, Japan, China, Canada, and other significant economies, Bitcoin is unlikely to move counter to that trend.
Therefore, rather than experiencing a sharp rally followed by a prolonged bear market, the current environment indicates a more extended and broader uptrend that could span through 2026 and into 2027.
Featured image from DALL-E, chart from TradingView.com
Despite the Bitcoin price recovery above the crucial $90,000 threshold—a level that has historically served as a supportive floor for the cryptocurrency—the market is exhibiting signs that a further correction may be imminent.
Market expert Rekt Fencer recently shared insights on social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, suggesting that the Bitcoin price might be forming what he calls a “massive bull trap.”
This term refers to a deceptive bullish signal in which the price briefly surpasses a resistance level, in this case, the $90,000 mark, only to reverse into a decline. Such movements can entrap investors who bought in during the peak, leading to significant losses.
Fencer pointed out a troubling pattern reminiscent of early 2022 when Bitcoin reclaimed its 50-week moving average (MA)—currently positioned above $102,300—before experiencing a severe decline of roughly 60%, plummeting below $20,000 by June of that year.
He indicated that the recent price recovery following major drops to $84,000 should not be interpreted as a signal of near-term success, especially since the Bitcoin price is currently trading under the 50-week MA.
If historical trends repeat, this could mean that Bitcoin might see a significant drop, potentially reaching around $36,200, which could potentially represent the low point of the bearish cycle for the cryptocurrency. On the other hand, there are analysts who retain a bullish outlook.
Market researcher and analyst Miles Deutscher expressed a confident sentiment, stating he believes there is a 91.5% likelihood that the Bitcoin price has hit its bottom, based on his analysis of key developments.
He noted that recent weeks have been dominated by negative news stories, including concerns surrounding Tether (USDT) and the implications of China’s actions on crypto, which he asserts often mark local price bottoms.
Moreover, Deutscher pointed out a shift in market flows from predominantly bearish to bullish. He explained that the trading environment has recently seen a resurgence in buying momentum, with large investors, or “OG whales,” ceasing their selling. This change has been reflected in the order books, indicating a possible stabilization in market sentiment.
Additionally, the liquidity landscape appears to be shifting, with market conditions tightening in recent months. The potential appointment of a new Federal Reserve chair known for dovish policies, coupled with the official end of quantitative tightening (QT), could further influence market dynamics in favor of buyers.
Deutscher concluded by emphasizing that given the extreme levels of fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) in the market, combined with improvements in trading flows, he believes that the odds favor the notion that the Bitcoin price has indeed reached its bottom.
Featured image from DALL-E, chart from TradingView.com
Polymarket is recruiting staff for an internal market-making team that would trade against its own customers, mirroring a controversial feature already used by rival Kalshi that has drawn criticism and legal challenges.
According to Bloomberg, the New York-based prediction market startup has approached traders, including sports bettors, to join the new unit, people familiar with the matter said, requesting anonymity because the plans remain private.
Polymarket declined to comment on the recruitment effort.
The move comes as the platform prepares its full U.S. relaunch after securing regulatory clearance from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, having paid a $1.4 million penalty in 2022 for operating an unregistered derivatives exchange.
Kalshi already operates an in-house trading arm, Kalshi Trading, which places bids on the exchange and effectively takes opposing positions to customers’ bets.
Company executives have defended the unit as necessary to create liquidity and improve the user experience.
Still, critics argue it creates inherent conflicts of interest and makes Kalshi resemble a traditional sportsbook rather than a neutral peer-to-peer platform.
Some are now claiming that the company is a gambling company and not a prediction company.
“Let’s just call a spade a spade, it’s gambling, lots of things are gambling,” a X user said.
— Martin Shkreli (@MartinShkreli) December 5, 2025
it has been decided by the courts
A proposed class action lawsuit filed last month alleges that Kalshi Trading sets betting lines that disadvantage customers, claiming “consumers place bets on Kalshi, they face off against money provided by a sophisticated market maker on the other side of the ledger.“
Kalshi co-founder Luana Lopes Lara dismissed the lawsuit as a “pure smear campaign” on social media.
She stated that Kalshi Trading operates unprofitably and receives “no preferential access or treatment.”
However, the legal challenge shows mounting concerns about whether prediction markets function as advertised, neutral platforms where users with differing opinions trade directly with each other.
1. Rebrand gambling as asset allocation
— Harry Crane (@HarryDCrane) December 5, 2025
2. Rebrand sportsbook as truth engine
3. Rebrand bets as predictions
4. Spin up in-house market maker to c̶o̶m̶p̶e̶t̶e̶ collaborate with c̶u̶s̶t̶o̶m̶e̶r̶s̶ fellow investors for the greater good
It's really noble if you think about it. https://t.co/UQx67fg3DI
Polymarket’s decision to build an internal trading desk arrives as the company executes its return to American markets following years offshore.
In December, the CFTC issued a no-action letter covering QCX LLC and QC Clearing LLC, two entities Polymarket acquired earlier in 2025 for $112 million to gain licensed designated contract market status and regulated clearing capabilities.
The agency granted temporary relief from certain swap data reporting requirements, allowing the platform to operate within the same framework governing federally supervised U.S. trading venues.
— Cryptonews.com (@cryptonews) November 25, 2025
Founder and CEO Shayne Coplan confirmed receiving “the green light to go live in the USA” and credited CFTC staff for completing the process in record time.
The regulatory clearance caps a lengthy journey that intensified in November 2024 when the FBI raided Coplan’s Manhattan residence and seized electronic devices as part of an investigation into whether Americans continued accessing the site through VPNs despite the 2022 ban.
Despite being barred from U.S. operations since 2022, Polymarket expanded aggressively overseas, recording roughly $6 billion in wagers during the first half of 2025 alone.
The platform gained global attention during the 2024 presidential election cycle, as its markets closely tracked Donald Trump’s odds of winning.
Prediction markets rely heavily on market makers willing to take less popular trades, as the platforms match buyers with sellers on binary yes-or-no contracts.
Both Polymarket and Kalshi have offered incentives rewarding heavy users who provide liquidity, while a small number of traditional financial trading firms, including Susquehanna International Group and Jump Trading, have begun serving as external market makers on Kalshi.
— Cryptonews.com (@cryptonews) November 25, 2025
Mike Novogratz’s Galaxy Digital is currently in talks with both platforms to become a liquidity provider, with Novogratz telling Bloomberg that the firm is “doing some small-scale experimenting with market-making on prediction markets.“
The broader debate centers on whether prediction markets genuinely differ from traditional gambling operations.
During a public appearance last month, Coplan called conventional sportsbooks a “scam” that “rip off the consumer,” positioning Polymarket as a transparent alternative where users trade against each other rather than facing house odds designed to extract profits.
The post Polymarket to Launch In-House Trading Desk That Bets Against Users: Report appeared first on Cryptonews.
Bitcoin appears to be weakening a crucial resistance mark, signaling that a momentous breakout to higher price levels is not far-fetched. Bitcoin trades near $91,000, down less than 2% over the past 24 hours.
This article was written in response to a statement made by European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde in an October 7, 2025, interview, where she claimed that bitcoin has “no intrinsic” or “underlying value.”
When Christine Lagarde says Bitcoin has no “intrinsic” or “underlying value,” she’s (likely) referring to the fact that it — unlike an equity — doesn’t produce a cash flow. The classic critique that follows is that it’s “purely speculative”, meaning it’s only worth what someone else is willing to buy it for in the future.
She further dismisses Bitcoin as a form of “digital gold” and seems to suggest that physical gold is somehow different — presumably because she assigns it value for its use cases beyond its function as money (if I had to guess).
To say that Bitcoin doesn’t have a cash flow is factually correct — but as nonsensical as saying “language” or “mathematics” have no cash flow.
One could, of course, counter Lagarde’s statement by appealing to the subjective value proposition — arguing that there’s no such thing as intrinsic value, since all value is subjective, and that anything can only ever be worth what someone else is willing to pay for it in the future.
But instead of taking that route, I’ll go the roundabout (and more entertaining) way of showing why she’s not only wrong, but also inconsistent by her own logic.
Let’s start with gold and the idea that something supposedly has “intrinsic value” because it has a use case beyond its function as money — to get that out of the way.
We’ll start with a forum excerpt from Satoshi themselves:
The entire point of money is to be one step removed from bartering — to serve as a neutral medium that communicates the underlying economic reality between supply and demand in an economy, allowing participants to make maximally informed decisions.
For this reason, throughout history, the evolution of money has consistently trended toward what cannot be easily recreated at will. The reason is simple: it’s within everyone’s self-interest, and the economy as a whole (as we will see), that the money being used and accepted cannot be diluted.
If gold were assumed for a moment to be absolutely scarce and used solely as money, the price of an apple becomes a pure function of supply and demand. The price, expressed in gold, could only change if the real supply or demand for apples changed. In this setup, all market participants are maximally informed and economic reality is upheld.
If, however, gold all of a sudden gained demand for some other purpose, such as being used for jewellery, the dynamics change. The price of an apple now becomes a function not only of the supply and demand for apples, but also the jewellery demand, as it’s causing a change in the denominator (money) itself. The result is a less-than-ideal form of money, where economic reality is distorted and market participants are presented with compromised information.
Note that this is materially different from a setup where, as in the real economy, billions of participants want billions of different things while still using the same money.
Money is merely the measuring stick, which means that the demand for bananas isn’t going to affect the price of apples just because both prices are expressed in the same unit of account. What is going to distort prices is if people start demanding the good being used as money for something other than its monetary function.
The irony here, of course, is that gold’s supposed “usefulness” — beyond money — its role in jewellery or industry — which supposedly makes it an exception to the rule of having underlying value, actually makes it less perfect as money. By having a non-monetary use, gold introduces an additional demand parameter into what’s meant to be a neutral measuring stick.
The ideal money, as Satoshi pointed out, would be a kind of “grey metal” — something with no other purpose than being perfect money itself. That “grey metal” is, of course, Bitcoin.
Let’s now move on to cash flows — the main topic of discussion whenever TradFi talks about “underlying” or “intrinsic” value.
After all, many of the same people who point out that Bitcoin doesn’t have any aren’t as internally conflicted as Lagarde, and extend the same judgment to gold (that it doesn’t have intrinsic value)— which, at the very least, is a more consistent position.
Last year, Meta (Facebook), Google, and Amazon reported combined cash flows of roughly $160 billion. If someone asked Lagarde whether these equities had an underlying value, she would of course say yes. Each company sits on billion-dollar assets and billion-dollar expected future cash flows that can be discounted to generate an equity valuation.
Bitcoin, on the other hand, has no comparable cash flows to speak of — no disagreement there.
But before we go further, let’s ask: Where do those cash flows actually come from? In other words, what is the driver of those cash flows from Meta, Google, and Amazon?
We’ve all used Facebook. It offers a global platform for people to connect, message, and share. Its revenue comes from selling ads on top of user attention. Why do people use Facebook? Because everyone else does. Because it offers the best experience. It’s a social network, meaning every new user adds value to everyone else.
What about Google? Same logic. It’s the world’s leading search engine — the front door of the internet. It also monetises through targeted advertising. Why do you use Google instead of Yahoo or Bing? Because everyone else does. The more data it gathers, the better it gets for everyone. Another network effect (often leading to winner-take-all outcomes).
Amazon? Same principle, different domain. It’s the default marketplace of the world, connecting buyers and sellers on a global scale. Amazon profits from subscriptions and logistics fees. Consumers use it because every supplier is there; suppliers use it because every consumer is there. Every new participant makes the network more useful. It started with books — now it sells everything.
Now, imagine each of these companies woke up one morning after a collective bump to the head, decided profit was overrated, and poured their fortunes into an endowment run entirely by an AI workforce — keeping the networks running exactly as before, just without the monetisation.
Shareholder value would immediately drop to zero.
But what about the network?
Would people still use Facebook, Google and Amazon? Of course!
Because the underlying value to the users was never the company itself — it was the network it monetised (which they had no other way of accessing without going through that monetisation). The fact that the network now costs nothing or very little to use wouldn’t make it less valuable for them, now would it?
Now, imagine another startup with a single vision: “We’re going to build the best money in the world.”
Its service is to launch a global network for value transfer and storage, promising a monetary asset with a fixed supply of 21 million units forever — no dilution, no exceptions (pinky promise). The monetisation model: small transaction fees, 10x lower than competitors.
We call it “The Bitcoin Company”.
Imagine it miraculously gained some early traction. Why would people continue or grow interested in using it? Well, because more and more people does. And as they do, both the equity value of those owning the company (as they collect fees) and the network value to the users would grow.
There you’d have your cash flows.
Ironically, this is the same “business model” that underpins the central banking system, only they defaulted on their original promise. By positioning themselves as issuers atop the fiat monetary network, central banks and megabanks monetise it through two layers.
At the base lies the fiat monetary network, consisting of state-backed money. Central banks monetise this layer by issuing the very units the network runs on and indirectly financing government deficits. Above them, megabanks monetise the same network through credit creation, earning profits from interest on loans, and now increasingly from stablecoins (which is like credit on top of credit.).
Lagarde insists stablecoins are “different” because she views them as network expanders that amplify the monetary network she controls. Just as Facebook’s advertising revenue grows with its user base, the spread of stablecoins enlarges the euro monetary network, giving central banks greater room for monetary expansion.
From her perspective, this expansion of units as the network grows functions like “cash flow” in the business model of central banking — and, in her eyes, that’s what constitutes its underlying value.
Now imagine the same twist: the Bitcoin Company dissolves. No CEO. No board. No office, anymore. The equity value and the cash flows immediately go to zero, but the Bitcoin Network remains —operations henceforth run without rulers (according to some “decentralised consensus protocol” dreamt up one night by some mysterious entity called Satoshi).
Ask yourself: would that make the network more or less valuable?
To be clear — we’ve just removed all counterparty risk.
No late-night CEO tweets.
No offices to raid.
No conflict of interest.
No Coldplay scandals.
The network just became (1) even cheaper to use, and (2) even the tiniest worry about that pinky promise was just erased (which, to be fair, you probably should have been pretty worried about).
So yes, from the user’s perspective, the network just became more valuable.
Christine Lagarde simply hasn’t done the intellectual groundwork needed to understand what she’s critiquing. Like so many others before her, she’s mistaking equity value (which generates cash flows) for the network value — without recognising the path dependency between them: there would be no cash flows without the network in the first place (!)
The wrong question: What is the equity value of the company monetising the network?
The right question: What is the network’s value to the users?
In other words:
The Bitcoin network isn’t valuable despite not being a company — it’s more valuable because it isn’t.
Unlike Meta, Google, or Amazon — whose networks power applications and commerce —the Bitcoin network provides the monetary foundation beneath them all. Its total addressable market is every transaction on Earth.
Now, you could try to build a straw man argument by claiming that the Bitcoin network isn’t truly a monetary network, since it isn’t “widely accepted” by your standards. The problem with that line of reasoning is (1) it implies that nothing new could ever emerge under the sun unless the entire world agreed on it in advance (pretty unreasonable), and (2) it would, by your own logic, require you to dismiss over 90% of the world’s sovereign currencies as money — including the Canadian dollar, the Swedish krona, and the Swiss franc — since Bitcoin’s market capitalisation already surpasses them many times over and would likely be accepted as payment by far more people globally.
Returning to the initial claim, to say that Bitcoin doesn’t have a cash flow is factually correct — but as nonsensical as saying “language” or “mathematics” have no cash flow. True enough, not in themselves — but they’re indispensable tools for creating everything that does.
In fact, if the money you’re using did offer cash flows (an interest rate yield), that would be a sign you were dealing with defective money.
Let me explain why in the simplest terms:
Suppose the total money supply is $100,000, and ten depositors each place $10,000 into a bank. The bank offers them 4% interest and lends out the full amount to borrowers at 5%. After a year, the borrowers owe $105,000 in total (principal plus interest).
Do you see the problem?
The borrowers owe more money than exists in the entire system. Where does the extra $5000 come from?
No amount of productivity or hard work can solve this mathematical impossibility. The only thing that can is the creation of new money to fill the gap. For the system to keep running, the money supply would have to grow at par with, or faster than, the interest rate being offered to depositors. It’s the only way the math can work out. That means the supposed “cash flow” being offered in the form of an interest rate is being paid for by diluting the very money it’s denominated in, which is the very definition of a Ponzi scheme (!)
The result is a lesser form of money — one that must constantly lose value for the math to work out.
It would now appear we’re at a paradoxical intersection: on one hand, Lagarde and others dismiss Bitcoin’s underlying value on the grounds that it has no cash flow; on the other, we can now see that if it did have a cash flow, it would by definition be flawed money.
It therefore seems that the very trait that makes Bitcoin perfect money — its inability to conjure fake cash flows out of thin air — is precisely what’s being used to dismiss it by those defending a system that only functions by doing exactly that. So how do we work this out?
Here lies the crucial insight that Lagarde, and many others, fail to grasp: something can possess underlying or intrinsic value in a roundabout way.
Take car insurance (or any other insurance policy, for that matter). Judged in isolation, it has a negative expected value — you pay premiums every month, and it’s structurally priced so that you’ll never get rich buying infinite insurance policies (if that were possible, everyone would).
But when you combine the policy with the car you own and depend on — the picture changes. You’ve now removed the risk of potential ruin. Evaluated together, you now have a situation where the insurance policy explodes in value (generating a positive cash flow) precisely when you need it most — when the car breaks down. Viewed as a whole, you end up with a positive geometric return (that is, underlying value through the omission of ruin) when the accident eventually occurs, which, odds are, it eventually will.
To illustrate this more practically, consider a scenario where a person depends on their car to get to work. Without insurance, a breakdown might mean they can’t afford the repair, resulting in the loss of both the car and their income. With insurance, however, the repair is covered, allowing them to maintain their income stream. In this way, the insurance policy has value far beyond its direct payoff, as it preserves the ability to keep generating cash flow.
This, as we shall now understand, is the entire logic behind money in the first place — and we could just as easily swap the insurance policy for a stack of cash (which is really just a more universal, unspecific form of insurance). You save money not because it generates a cash flow, but because it gives you future optionality and explodes in usefulness when you need it most, allowing you to quickly recover and adapt when the unexpected occurs.
This is not speculative behavior. The reason you hold money is not because you’re engaging in what critics accuse you of — the “greater fool” prediction business, but precisely because you want to avoid it! You hold money not because you’re making a prediction of the future, but because you know you can’t, and therefore want to be ready for whatever it brings. After all, why would you pay for car insurance if you knew you would never need it?
The “greater fool” argument collapses under closer scrutiny because it assumes every individual faces the same circumstances, preferences, and time horizons. It treats the economy as a zero-sum game in which one person’s prudence must come at another’s expense. But reality is the opposite: what’s rational for each participant depends on their unique position in time and space.
Someone sitting on a vast reserve of cash might rationally choose to exchange part of it for a new car with a better A/C that improve their comfort and quality of life. Someone else, with less savings or living in a colder climate, might rationally do the precise opposite — defer a new car purchase and strengthen their savings buffer. Both are acting rationally within their own context. The latter isn’t a “greater fool” for buying the money the former is selling for a car. They’re both winners! Otherwise they wouldn’t agree to the trade in the first place!
Markets exist precisely because we don’t share the same circumstances or needs. The value of money, then, isn’t born from finding a “greater fool”, but from coordinating billions of rational actors, each seeking to balance their own lives in their own way.
We can extend this observation to all the networks and protocols mentioned earlier. Whether it’s a monetary network, a social network, mathematics, or language — each derives its value in a roundabout way that continues to fly over the heads of people like Lagarde, whose job ironically is supposed to be an expert on these things.
Case Closed: Bitcoin’s Underlying Value, Explained was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
Italy’s financial regulator has urged crypto companies to prepare for a major regulatory shift, as the EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) framework approaches a key cutoff. Specifically, the reminder highlights a December 30, 2025, deadline that will determine whether many operators can continue serving customers in the country.
Fidelity CEO Abigail Johnson has reiterated her long-term confidence in Bitcoin. She recently told attendees at the Founders Summit 2025 that she personally owns Bitcoin and sees it as a permanent asset in global savings strategies.
Indiana lawmakers have introduced a proposal that would let public funds across the state invest in Bitcoin. House Bill 1042 arrived on Dec.
Alphabet’s TPUs are gaining investor hype as analysts say the company could capture a share of the $900 billion AI-chip market.
The post Alphabet Emerges as Nvidia’s Biggest Threat in a $900B AI-Chip Race appeared first on TechRepublic.
Alphabet’s TPUs are gaining investor hype as analysts say the company could capture a share of the $900 billion AI-chip market.
The post Alphabet Emerges as Nvidia’s Biggest Threat in a $900B AI-Chip Race appeared first on TechRepublic.
A popular XRP community figure has warned investors to sell their XRP and walk away if they do not understand Ripple’s vision. Egrag, a well-known voice in the community, issued the warning on X in response to a new announcement from Ripple’s partner, GTreasury.
The debut of XRP ETFs has revived optimism in the market, especially as these products continue to attract large amounts of capital. For context, since their launch, the funds have pulled in roughly $666 million across 11 trading sessions.
A market pundit has suggested that it's interesting that Franklin Templeton sees XRP as foundational to global settlement, but not because of the potential price impact. This statement came from Tyler Hill, co-founder and CEO of Fluence, amid an impressive rise in institutional interest in XRP over the past few months.
XRP holders are increasingly eyeing the potential upside if Bitcoin were to hit the much-discussed $1 million milestone. Indeed, altcoins like XRP stand to benefit significantly from major rallies in the crypto market, thanks to institutional interest.
Bitcoin Magazine
Why The Bitcoin Bear Market Is Almost Finished
Bitcoin has struggled to maintain a sustained correlation with Gold, recently only moving in unison during market downturns. However, examining Bitcoin’s price action through the lens of Gold rather than USD reveals a more complete picture of the current market cycle. By measuring Bitcoin’s true purchasing power against comparable assets, we can identify potential support levels and gauge where the bear market cycle may be approaching its conclusion.
Breaking beneath the 350-day moving average at about $100,000 and the significant psychological 6-figure barrier marked the functional entry into bear market territory, with Bitcoin declining approximately 20% immediately thereafter. From a technical perspective, trading beneath The Golden Ratio Multiplier moving average has historically indicated Bitcoin entering a bear cycle, though the narrative becomes more interesting when measured against Gold rather than USD.
The Bitcoin versus Gold chart tells a notably different story than the USD chart. Bitcoin topped out in December 2024 and has since declined over 50% from that level, whereas the USD valuation peaked in October 2025, significantly beneath the highs set the prior year. This divergence suggests that Bitcoin may have been in a bear market for considerably longer than most observers realize. Looking at historical Bitcoin bear cycles when measured in Gold, we can see patterns that suggest the current pullback may already be approaching critical support zones.
The 2015 bear cycle bottomed at an 86% retracement lasting 406 days. The 2017 cycle saw 364 days and an 84% decline. The previous bear cycle produced a 76% drawdown over 399 days. Currently, at the time of this analysis, Bitcoin is down 51% in 350 days when measured against Gold. While percentage drawdowns have been diminishing as Bitcoin’s market cap grows and more capital flows into the market, this trend reflects the rising tide of institutional adoption and lost Bitcoin supply rather than a fundamental change in cycle dynamics.
Rather than relying solely on percentage drawdowns and time elapsed, Fibonacci retracement levels mapped across multiple cycles provide greater precision. Using a Fibonacci retracement tool from bottom to top across historical cycles reveals striking levels of confluence.
In the 2015-2018 cycle, the bear market bottom occurred at the 0.618 Fibonacci level, which corresponded to approximately 2.56 ounces of Gold per Bitcoin. The resulting price action marked the bottom with remarkable clarity, far cleaner than the equivalent USD chart. Moving forward to the 2018-2022 cycle, the bear market bottom aligned almost perfectly with the 0.5 level at approximately 9.74 ounces of Gold per Bitcoin. This level later acted as meaningful resistance-turned-support once Bitcoin reclaimed it during the subsequent bull market.
From the previous bear market low through the current bull cycle high, the 0.618 Fibonacci level sits at approximately 22.81 ounces of Gold per Bitcoin, while the 0.5 level rests at 19.07 ounces. Current price action is trading near the midpoint of these two levels, presenting what may be an attractive accumulation zone from a purchasing power perspective.
Multiple Fibonacci levels from different cycles create additional confluence. The 0.786 level from the current cycle translates to approximately 21.05 ounces of Gold, corresponding to a Bitcoin price around $89,160. The 0.618 level from the previous cycle aligns near $80,000 again. These convergence zones suggest that if Bitcoin were to decline further, the next meaningful technical target would be around $67,000, derived from the 0.382 Fibonacci retracement level at approximately 15.95 ounces of Gold per Bitcoin.
Bitcoin has likely been in a bear market for substantially longer than USD-only analysis suggests, with purchasing power already declining significantly since December 2024, when measured against Gold and other comparable assets. Historical Fibonacci retracement levels, when properly calibrated across multiple cycles and converted back into USD terms, point toward potential support confluence in the $67,000 to $80,000 range. While this analysis is inherently theoretical and unlikely to play out with perfect precision, the convergence of multiple data points across time horizons and valuation frameworks suggests the bear market may be approaching its conclusion sooner than many anticipate.
For a more in-depth look into this topic, watch our most recent YouTube video here: Proof This Bitcoin Bear Market May Be OVER Already
For deeper data, charts, and professional insights into bitcoin price trends, visit BitcoinMagazinePro.com. Subscribe to Bitcoin Magazine Pro on YouTube for more expert market insights and analysis!
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial advice. Always do your own research before making any investment decisions.
This post Why The Bitcoin Bear Market Is Almost Finished first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Matt Crosby.
A recent discussion on Good Evening Crypto revealed that billionaire families are quietly acquiring XRP behind the scenes. The revelation came from Jake Claver, CEO of Digital Ascension Group.
While the crypto market continues to struggle, some Shiba Inu investors appear to be taking advantage of discounted prices. Over the past day, a mysterious whale behind a newly created wallet withdrew more than 169 billion Shiba Inu (SHIB) tokens from Coinbase.
Fundstrat’s Tom Lee says the worst phase of the current Bitcoin and crypto downturn is likely over. Speaking at Binance Blockchain Week, he argued that digital assets have already “bottomed,” noting that recent weakness does not reflect the sector’s underlying progress.
Shiba Inu has experienced its first golden cross for the month of December, building momentum for a decisive move to greater heights. Beyond the recent dip, momentum could be building for Shiba Inu, the second-largest meme coin by market cap.
Login