Jia Lilly

The crypto market, particularly Bitcoin, has been navigating a turbulent February, marked by a significant downturn in investor sentiment. A deep dive into market indicators reveals a landscape of extreme pessimism, prompting questions about an impending market bottom.

Matrixport’s Greed & Fear Index has plunged to levels seldom observed, historically aligning with pivotal market turning points. The firm highlights a recurring pattern: when the 21-day moving average of this index dips below zero and subsequently begins an upward trajectory, it often precedes the formation of enduring market bottoms. While current conditions appear to mirror this setup, analysts caution against anticipating an immediate rebound, suggesting that short-term volatility may persist even as foundational elements for a recovery begin to coalesce.

Further insights from on-chain analytics paint a similarly cautious picture. Analyst Woominkyu points to Bitcoin’s adjusted Spent Output Profit Ratio (aSOPR) settling within the 0.92–0.94 range. This specific band has historically been associated with intense bear market pressures, reminiscent of the significant corrections witnessed in 2019 and 2023, periods characterized by widespread selling at a loss before market stabilization. The concern extends beyond the immediate figures; Woominkyu posits that the current market structure might signify a more profound shift rather than a typical market correction. A failure of aSOPR to swiftly reclaim the 1.0 threshold could signal a prolonged bearish phase, moving beyond a mere shakeout of weaker holders.

Genuine market bottoms, it is argued, only materialize once selling pressure is entirely depleted, a state that may not yet be fully realized. A more profound period of price compression and the full realization of losses typically precede any sustainable recovery. With Bitcoin currently trading around $68,000, some forecasts even entertain the possibility of a retest of sub-$40,000 levels, representing a potential drawdown exceeding 40%. While such a scenario appears drastic, it is not without historical precedent during periods of structural market downturns.

In essence, the market presents a dichotomy: sentiment indicators hint at a potential turning point, yet the underlying on-chain data suggests that the market’s structural vulnerabilities have not fully mended. This creates a conflicted outlook, balancing nascent hope with the stark realities of market data. For now, a strategy of patience is advocated over speculative predictions, acknowledging that while the groundwork for a recovery is being laid, pinpointing the precise market bottom remains an exceptionally challenging endeavor for most traders.
$BTC
$ETH
#MarketRebound #BTCFellBelow$69,000Again
#BTC

The precious metals complex is navigating a particularly awkward stretch in early 2026, with gold struggling to maintain its record-breaking trajectory amid conflicting economic signals, while silver's dramatic price surge is quietly reshaping supply dynamics in ways that markets rarely anticipate.
Gold's extraordinary run through 2025 leaned heavily on one reliable pillar: sovereign buying. Central banks globally absorbed 328 tonnes across the year, led aggressively by Poland's National Bank, which alone stacked 102 tonnes — a figure reflecting Eastern Europe's accelerating de-dollarization strategy. Kazakhstan and Brazil were meaningful contributors as well. While that figure represents a slight pullback from 2024's 345-tonne total, the structural story remains intact. Governments aren't treating gold as a trade; they're treating it as permanent monetary architecture.
But what gave gold its momentum is now creating its uncertainty problem. The Fed's rate path — which drove significant investment demand as yields softened — has become genuinely difficult to read. January's non-farm payrolls came in at 130,000, a number that superficially suggests labor market resilience and reduces the urgency for rate reductions. The complication lies beneath that headline figure. Benchmark revisions wiped out over one million previously reported job gains from 2025, fundamentally altering the picture of how much economic strength actually existed. Markets are now left reconciling a strong current print against a substantially weaker historical baseline — exactly the kind of ambiguity that makes policy forecasting treacherous.
With the 2-year Treasury yield hovering near 3.5% — currently the floor of the Fed's target band — a rate adjustment at the next meeting appears unlikely regardless of which labor market narrative wins out. Spot gold, reflecting this paralysis, slipped below $5,000 per ounce in thin holiday trading, last changing hands near $4,977.
Silver's situation tells a different but equally fascinating story. Prices have surged to levels that are now triggering a behavioral shift among ordinary households. Pre-1965 silver dollar coins have nearly tripled in value year-over-year, and that appreciation is pulling material off shelves, out of drawers, and away from mantelpieces across North America. Dealers are reporting a sharp uptick in retail selling as people monetize coins, heirloom jewelry, and sterling silverware that had essentially functioned as family keepsakes for decades. This secondary supply response — dormant material reactivated by price — represents one of the more underappreciated dynamics in commodity markets.
In China, the silver market remains structurally tight. Shanghai futures have been in backwardation, exchange inventories are declining, and domestic producers face order backlogs constraining deliverable supply. The Lunar New Year is expected to provide temporary relief as speculative positioning unwinds and open interest on the SHFE retreats. Position management tightening ahead of delivery should slow the pace of inventory withdrawals.
What these two metals collectively illustrate is how differently price catalysts behave at extremes. Gold is waiting on policy clarity that isn't coming. Silver has moved so fast that it's beginning to create its own supply response from sources that don't appear in traditional production models. Both outcomes confirm that 2026 will be defined less by fundamentals and more by the unpredictable intersection of monetary policy, geopolitical reserve strategy, and human behavior when prices reach levels that turn sentiment into action.
$XAU
$XAG
#XAU #GOLD #MarketRebound

Everyone in my group chat thinks I have lost my mind. They keep posting pictures of meme coins that made a lot of money in a weekend but I am sitting here looking at the details of a chain where sometimes the daily trading volume is so small it seems like a mistake. The more I look at Vanars price, which is not changing much the more I think that people are misunderstanding what is going on with this chart.

Let us look at how the tokensre distributed and forget about the price for now. The early investors have mostly sold their tokens. There are a lot of tokens to buy and sell. There is no release of tokens that could hurt the price. Every buy order now is from someone who decided to buy Vanar today. It is not from an institution buying a lot of tokens at a discounted price. It is not from tokens that were locked up and are now being sold. It is demand from people who want to buy Vanar. In a market where people are used to prices being artificially inflated this kind of honest structure is very rare.

Most traders do not like Vanar because they are looking at it in the way they look at other crypto projects. They think that the price of a token goes up when new people buy it faster than old people sell it. Vanar is different. They have a system where tokens are destroyed when people use their intelligence and data services. This is like a software company that makes money from subscriptions. You are not buying a ticket to a lottery. You are buying a piece of the idea that businesses will pay to use this infrastructure. The token becomes more valuable when people use the services not when people speculate about the price.

This idea will only work if businesses start using Vanar. Now not many businesses are using it. I looked at the transactions on the blockchain. There are not many. There are a simple deployments and transfers but not much else. There are no smart contract interactions. There is no yield farming or trading on exchanges. For people who want to make money quickly using DeFi strategies there is nothing to do with Vanar.

I have seen this before. Fantom and Polygon were in situations before they became popular. They had a foundation and then their ecosystems grew. Vanar has a technical foundation too. They have intelligence built into their system. They have modules for enterprise compliance. They have a partnership with Google Cloud that's not just for show.

The biggest risk for Vanar is that there is not money moving in and out of the market. The order books on exchanges are thin. The spreads are wide. If someone wants to sell a lot of tokens the price could drop quickly. This creates a problem where big investors do not want to buy because the market is thin and the market is thin because big investors do not want to buy.

My calculation is that the whole crypto market is moving towards a moment where businesses will have to choose which blockchain to use. When that happens they will not choose the blockchain with the meme coins. They will choose the blockchain that's predictable, compliant and supports their business. Vanar is built for that.

At the price you are not paying much for the possibility that this idea will work. The downside is that you could lose an amount of money on a token that is not very liquid. The upside is that you could be one of the first to invest in infrastructure that every business will need. In a portfolio of risky investments one safe bet, on the fundamentals could be the smartest move.

Sometimes the road that looks empty can lead to a place that nobody else thought to build.

$VANRY #vanar #Vanar @Vanar

The $XRP Ledger is showing signs of cooling off, with on-chain data revealing a significant dip in network participation that has caught the attention of market watchers.
Crypto analyst Ali Martinez flagged the trend on X, noting that active addresses on the XRP network have dropped by roughly 26%, sliding down to around 40,778. The numbers, backed by chart data Martinez shared publicly, paint a picture of fading engagement across the ledger at a time when consistency in user activity matters most.
So what does this actually mean for XRP holders and traders?
Active addresses serve as one of the more reliable indicators of how much real usage a blockchain is getting. When that number climbs, it typically suggests growing interest, whether from new users, active traders, or developers interacting with the network. When it falls like this, it raises questions about whether demand is softening or if participants are simply stepping to the sidelines during a quieter stretch.
A 26% decline is not something you brush off easily. That kind of contraction often feeds into broader sentiment shifts, especially among traders who lean heavily on on-chain metrics to time their moves. If fewer wallets are transacting, it can create a narrative of weakening momentum, and narratives in crypto tend to become self-fulfilling pretty quickly.
That said, context matters here. Periods of reduced activity are not uncommon across blockchain networks, particularly after surges in price action or speculative interest. Sometimes a cooldown is just that, a natural pause before the next wave of engagement picks up. XRP has gone through cycles like this before, where short-term dips in participation did not necessarily translate into prolonged downtrends.
The bigger question now is whether this drop stabilizes or deepens. If active addresses continue sliding over the next few sessions, it could point to a more structural shift in how users are interacting with the ledger. On the other hand, a quick rebound in address counts would suggest this was nothing more than a temporary lull.
Market participants will be keeping a close eye on upcoming data releases to get a clearer read on where things are headed. For now, the numbers tell a cautious story, and XRP's near-term trajectory may hinge on whether the network can attract fresh activity back to the chain.

#MarketRebound #TradeCryptosOnX #XRP

For a fleeting moment in early 2026, the silver market transformed into a digital-age spectacle. Dubbed the "GameStop of 2026" by startled analysts, the white metal’s price action was less about traditional valuation and more a reflection of a coordinated retail and algorithmic frenzy. It was a liquidity event masquerading as a commodity rally, and its collapse was as swift as its ascent.

The Velocity of Unraveling

Silver’s meteoric rise to a peak of $118 was built on a foundation of social media momentum and leveraged retail options trading, not physical scarcity. The turning point arrived not with a geopolitical shock, but with a subtle shift in the bond market. Comments from a newly appointed Treasury official hinted at a more aggressive normalization of the yield curve. This modest repricing of the dollar was enough to prick the bubble.

What followed on January 30th wasn't just a correction; it was a structural unwind. In a single, brutal session, silver lost nearly a third of its value—the sharpest percentage decline since 1980. The entire rally, which had seemed so powerful, was revealed to be a highly leveraged position with no deep-seated institutional support. When the first wave of stop-losses triggered, the cascading effect was amplified by high-frequency trading algorithms that flipped from aggressive buyers to even more aggressive sellers in milliseconds.

Gold's Institutional Moat

Gold experienced the same macro shock, suffering a sharp 12% drawdown. However, the comparison ends there. While silver was in freefall, gold found a floor with astonishing speed. Within a week, it had recaptured the $5,000 level, a feat that spoke volumes about its market structure.

The divergence was stark. Data from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) showed that speculative "paper" longs had been rapidly exiting silver. In contrast, the gold market saw sovereign wealth funds and major pension funds stepping in to buy the dip. This is gold's enduring advantage: a diversified, multi-trillion-dollar ecosystem of buyers with multi-decade investment horizons. A 10% drawdown is viewed by these players as a buying opportunity, not a reason to panic. The LBMA (London Bullion Market Association) reported that gold swap lines saw their highest usage in two years during the turmoil, providing crucial liquidity that silver’s much thinner market simply lacked.

The Fundamental Flaw in the Silver Story

The popular narrative for silver has long been the "supply deficit" driven by green technology. And it's true, industrial demand for photovoltaics and 5G infrastructure is robust. However, recent supply chain analysis from CRU Group offers a more nuanced view. They found that solar manufacturers, facing margin compression from falling panel prices, have accelerated their shift to silver-coated copper and advanced cell architectures that use up to 40% less silver per watt than older technologies. This "thrifting" is happening faster than the models had predicted, effectively capping the upside potential from the green transition. The much-hyped supply deficit is shrinking, not growing, as technological substitution outpaces demand growth.

The Verdict: Momentum vs. Money

Silver retains its allure for traders chasing high beta exposure to a metals rally. Its volatility will always attract speculative capital. But the January washout served as a brutal reminder of its dual nature. When the financial system experiences a genuine shock, capital doesn't seek refuge in an industrial metal with volatile ETF flows; it flows into the only asset with no counterparty risk.

Gold, once again, proved it is not just another commodity. It is the foundational layer of the global financial system. Silver, for all its industrial promise, remains a derivative of that foundation a high-octane bet that thrives on momentum but wilts under the harsh light of a real fundamental reassessment.
$XAU $XAG
#XAU #XAG #GOLD #MarketRebound

Lets be honest about something that most Fogo enthusiasts tend to overlook. The technology is really impressive. The trading experience does feel different and better. However if we take a step back and look at the picture, including the token distribution chart things start to look a bit uncomfortable.

38% of Fogos total supply is currently in circulation. That's a number that should give you pause. It means that 62% of all tokens that will ever exist are locked up in vesting schedules for core contributors, institutional investors, the foundation and advisors. The people building Fogo and those who funded it control two-thirds of the eventual supply. You and I as retail investors buying on Binance and other exchanges are trading within a small slice of what this market will eventually become.

Core contributors have 34% under a four-year vesting schedule with a twelve-month cliff. This cliff will expire in January 2027. The first advisor unlock will happen as early as September 2026 which is just seven months away. Institutional investors like Distributed Global and CMS Holdings hold 8.77% also vesting over four years. The Foundation has an allocation that was partially unlocked at launch.

None of this information is hidden, Fogo has been transparent about these numbers. However there's a difference between being transparent and being comfortable with the information. Knowing that a large supply is coming doesn't make the situation better.

The staking mechanics add to the complexity. Yes the yields are paid on schedule. I have tested this across multiple epochs. However the rewards are inflationary meaning new tokens are printed to compensate stakers. If the ecosystem doesn't generate economic activity to absorb this inflation then the staking returns become an illusion. You earn tokens but they are worth less. The interface is also quite complex, similar to a Bloomberg terminal with epoch cycles, weight parameters and delegation mechanics that can be confusing for anyone without experience in investing.

The governance question is also a concern. Fogo operates with DAO elements. The voting power is concentrated among large stakers and validator operators. A retail holder with a hundred dollars in FOGO can submit a governance vote but its like shouting into the wind. The real decisions are made by entities with weight to influence outcomes.

In comparison Ethereum has had years of market trading distributing ETH across millions of wallets. Cosmos has governance dynamics through validator delegation. Fogo being one month old hasn't had time for natural distribution of its tokens. The market structure reflects this with price action on the chart moving with mechanical precision lacking the organic patterns of genuine retail participation.

Here's where things get nuanced. Concentrated ownership in early-stage infrastructure isn't automatically a thing. Every successful chain started like this. Solanas early token distribution was heavily weighted toward insiders and Ethereums presale concentrated ETH among a group. What mattered was how quickly the tokens were dispersed over the years.

Fogos decision to cancel its planned presale and pivot toward expanded airdrops suggests that the team is aware of this issue. Burning 2% of the genesis supply permanently and distributing tokens to testnet participants of selling to large investors are deliberate choices that focus on building a community.

However these choices don't eliminate the risk. The September 2026 unlock and the January 2027 cliff are real. Between and then every FOGO holder is betting that the ecosystem will grow enough to absorb the incoming supply.

The technology is impressive. It deserves praise. However technology and tokenomics are two things. One determines whether the chain works and the other determines who profits when it does. Smart investors should watch both the performance dashboard and the unlock schedule. Now the performance dashboard looks great but the unlock schedule is, like a countdown.

$FOGO #Fogo #fogo @fogo

Out there a person is trying to play a blockchain game for the very first time. They come across a screen that asks them to create a wallet. They see the words "seed phrase". This is where they get confused and close the tab never to come. This kind of thing happens thousands of times every day. It is surprising that nobody in the industry is really doing anything to fix this problem. VanarChain noticed this issue. Decided to do something about it.

The usual sales pitch for a Layer 1 blockchain goes like this: we are faster we are cheaper. We have better zero-knowledge proofs. VanarChain did not bother with any of that. Of trying to appeal to people who already know about gas fees and nonce management they built their system so that those things are never a problem for the user. Their account abstraction layer does not just make the wallet experience simpler it gets rid of it altogether. When you use a VanarChain application it feels like you are logging into any website. You do not need any extensions, seed phrases or popups asking you to approve transactions you do not understand.

I tried this out for myself by running their software development kit on a test network. The experience for developers is just as simple. The system handles gas fees in the background so developers can pay for transactions or bundle costs without the user noticing. This means that blockchain technology becomes a part of the infrastructure and users do not even need to know it is there. They can just use the product like they would any website.

This is a different approach from what other projects like Starknet or zkSync are doing. Those projects are pushing the boundaries of what's possible with cryptography and that is important for the long-term security and scalability of decentralized systems.. They are building for people who are already interested in blockchain technology. VanarChain is building for the billions of people who will never be interested in the details of blockchain and who should not have to be.

The partnership with Google Cloud is also very important. It means that VanarChain can offer the kind of reliability and uptime that big companies expect. When a gaming studio or a brand like Nike is evaluating blockchain infrastructure they are not worried about how transactions per second it can handle. They want to know if the system will stay online when a lot of people are using it at the time. VanarChain can answer that question with confidence thanks to its partnership with Google Cloud.

The fact that VanarChain is compatible with the Ethereum Virtual Machine is also a plus. Developers who already know how to build on Ethereum or Arbitrum can migrate their contracts to VanarChain without having to rewrite any code. They just need to change the RPC endpoint and deploy. This means that VanarChain does not need to convince developers to learn a language or adopt a new framework. It just needs to show that its platform is better with costs and more predictable fees. And users will not get confused during the onboarding process so they will be more likely to stick around.

To be honest the ecosystem around VanarChain is still in its stages. The infrastructure is there. It is not being used as much as it could be. The block explorer does not show a lot of activity and the developer documentation could be better. Some of the API parameters are not well-documented which can be frustrating for engineers who are used to working with documented systems like Stripe.

It is common for infrastructure to come before the ecosystem that uses it. The blockchain platforms that were successful in the past did not start out with a lot of applications. They were successful because they had a foundation and when applications needed a home they were ready. VanarChain has laid that foundation with a goal, in mind. The hundred million blockchain users should never even know they are using a blockchain. The technology should be invisible, stable and cheap so that nobody ever needs to ask about it.

Every blockchain platform promises to bring in a lot of users.. Vanarchain is the one that is actually building its platform with the idea that users should never have to learn about blockchain technology.

@Vanarchain $VANRY #vanar #Vanar

The precious metals complex has delivered a stark lesson in market dynamics this January, as gold successfully defended a historic psychological barrier while silver capitulated in dramatic fashion.

Gold's breach and subsequent defense of the $5,000 per ounce level represents a watershed moment. Following the most severe single-session selloff in over a decade, the yellow metal demonstrated remarkable resilience, reclaiming this threshold within days. This recovery underscores a fundamental shift in market composition that separates gold from its industrial counterpart.

The distinguishing factor lies in the buyer base. Throughout January's volatility, gold benefited from persistent, price-insensitive institutional accumulation. Central banks, particularly the People's Bank of China which has now recorded fifteen consecutive months of purchases, continue treating gold as a strategic reserve asset rather than a speculative instrument. This sovereign buying removes substantial physical supply from circulating markets, effectively creating structural support that dampens downside volatility.

Silver's trajectory tells a different story. The white metal's remarkable 2025 advance—approximately 140% from trough to peak—was built primarily on fragile foundations: leveraged futures positioning and algorithmic momentum strategies. When macroeconomic catalysts, specifically dollar strength following unexpected political developments, triggered position unwinding, silver's carefully constructed rally collapsed with startling speed. COMEX managed money net longs were reduced to levels not witnessed since early 2024.

The current gold-silver ratio near 61 might superficially suggest relative value in silver. However, this metric fails to capture the velocity of silver's recent descent from its $116 peak. Such parabolic advances rarely find immediate equilibrium, and the absence of institutional buying programs comparable to gold's leaves silver vulnerable to continued recalibration.

Major financial institutions reflect this divergence in their outlooks. Goldman Sachs projects gold reaching $5,400 by year-end, while Bank of America's $6,000 forecast suggests institutional confidence in continued sovereign demand. Silver analysts, conversely, offer projections characterized by wider confidence intervals and explicit references to industrial cyclicality.

This analysis does not dismiss silver's structural merits. Its industrial applications—dominating photovoltaic cell manufacturing and expanding into AI-driven electronics—provide compelling long-term demand fundamentals. However, for investors seeking resilience during periods of systemic volatility, gold's institutional backing provides a crucial differentiator that silver's predominantly speculative market structure cannot currently replicate.

$XAU $XAG
#PreciousMetals #Gold #Silver #XAU

The Transparency Trap I am Talks About
Blockchain technology was built on a promise of openness. Every transaction visible, every wallet traceable, every deal recorded for the world to see. For years, the industry celebrated this radical transparency as its greatest strength. Now, some of crypto's biggest names are saying it might actually be its greatest weakness.
Binance co-founder Changpeng "CZ" Zhao took to X over the weekend to highlight what he believes is a fundamental barrier standing between crypto and mainstream payments adoption. His argument was straightforward: imagine a company paying employees on-chain. Within minutes, anyone with a block explorer could map out the entire salary structure just by following wallet addresses.
It is not a hypothetical concern. It is the reality of how public blockchains work today, and it is making both everyday users and deep-pocketed institutions think twice before going all in.
Wall Street Wants In, But Not Like This
CZ's comments landed right alongside a broader conversation happening at CoinDesk Consensus in Hong Kong, where institutional heavyweights made the same point from a different angle.
Fabio Frontini, CEO of Abraxas Capital Management, put it bluntly during a panel on the institutional market cycle. For large-scale transactions, total transparency is not an advantage. Institutions need deals to remain auditable and verifiable, but only to the parties who are supposed to have access. Full public exposure of transaction details is a dealbreaker at that level.
The concern is not theoretical. In December, JPMorgan arranged a $50 million commercial paper issuance for Galaxy Digital on the Solana blockchain. It was a milestone moment for tokenized debt on a public chain. But it also put a spotlight on the gaps that still exist.
Emma Lovett from JPMorgan's Markets DLT team emphasized that institutions will not move serious capital on-chain until they are confident their entire transaction history will not be exposed the moment someone identifies a single wallet address.
Execution Certainty Matters Just as Much
Thomas Restout, group CEO of B2C2, added another layer to the discussion. Privacy alone will not solve the problem. Institutions also need certainty of execution. When you are operating at the scale of trillions rather than thousands, the margin for error shrinks to almost nothing.
Restout pointed out that some blockchain networks have already pivoted toward privacy-focused infrastructure specifically to attract institutional capital. The race is not just about speed or cost anymore. It is about building systems that meet the operational standards Wall Street demands.
The Bottom Line
The crypto industry has spent years chasing adoption. The technology works. The infrastructure is maturing. But until privacy and execution guarantees catch up, the biggest players in finance will keep one foot firmly on the sidelines. CZ and the voices at Consensus are sending a clear message: fix privacy, or forget mass adoption.

#CZ #PrivacyProtection #Binance

Bitcoin is bleeding and one of Wall Street's loudest bears thinks the worst is far from over.
Bloomberg Intelligence senior commodity strategist Mike McGlone dropped a stark warning on February 15, arguing that BTC could eventually collapse to $10,000 as the broader risk-asset machine grinds to a halt. His thesis connects crumbling crypto prices to deeper cracks forming across equities, volatility cycles, and macro liquidity. According to McGlone, the "buy the dip" mentality that propped up markets since 2008 may finally be dying.
The numbers paint a painful picture. Bitcoin has shed roughly 28% in the past month and sits nearly 50% below its 2025 high above $126,000. The Fear and Greed Index collapsed to 8, matching the panic seen during the FTX meltdown. CryptoQuant data reveals that 43% of circulating BTC supply is currently underwater, amplifying the sense that capitulation is gaining momentum.
McGlone's framework maps BTC divided by ten against the S&P 500 and notes both were sitting below 7,000 on February 13. His logic is straightforward: if equities revert toward 5,600 on the S&P, Bitcoin tracks to roughly $56,000. If stocks actually peak at these levels and roll over, he sees a much steeper plunge into five figures. He calls the current environment comparable to 2008, pointing to U.S. stock market cap relative to GDP at century highs, suppressed equity volatility, and gold surging at speeds not seen in half a century.
Not everyone agrees with the doomsday scenario. Market analyst Jason Fernandes pushed back sharply, calling McGlone's thesis "false equivalence and single-path bias." Fernandes argues that markets can resolve excess through consolidation and rotation rather than outright collapse. A drop to $10K would require a genuine systemic event including credit spreads blowing out, forced fund deleveraging, and a disorderly equity drawdown. Absent that kind of crisis, he views it as a low-probability tail risk.
And beneath the surface panic, accumulation data tells a different story. CryptoQuant reports that long-term accumulator addresses are absorbing around 372,000 BTC monthly, up from just 10,000 in September 2024. Binance converted its entire $1 billion SAFU insurance reserve into Bitcoin, now holding roughly 15,000 BTC. Goldman Sachs filings show exposure to 13,740 BTC through spot ETFs despite the drawdown.
The divergence between retail fear and institutional conviction is the real story here. Whether McGlone's extreme target materializes depends entirely on whether equities hold their ground or crack under the weight of decade-long excess.
$BTC

#BTCFellBelow$69,000Again #MarketRebound #BTC