When a Straight Line Tries to Predict Bitcoin’s Next Fall to Thirty Eight Thousand Dollars.

You can feel the temptation, can you not, to turn uncertainty into geometry. Today we walk through a forecast that claims Bitcoin may sink toward thirty eight thousand dollars, and we ask what such a claim truly rests on: a pattern of past crashes, a story about money’s weakening, and a sudden reversal in how Bitcoin moves with the dollar.

We begin with a simple fact of human action: when prices fall, minds search for a floor.

So you see a quiet race among analysts to name the lowest point Bitcoin might reach, and the targets seem to descend as quickly as confidence does. A well known financial services firm based in Saint Louis, Missouri enters this race, and its analysts offer a number meant to sound precise: thirty eight thousand dollars.

Now notice the method, because the method is the message. They look backward and draw a straight line through the low points of major Bitcoin crashes since the year two thousand ten. They list the old collapses in stark percentages: about ninety three percent in the year two thousand eleven, about eighty four percent in the year two thousand fifteen, about eighty three percent in the year two thousand eighteen, and about seventy six percent in the year two thousand twenty two. Connect those bottoms, they say, and the line slopes upward until it points to a new possible nadir near thirty eight thousand dollars.

Here is the paradox you should sit with for a moment: a market made of changing plans, changing fears, and changing constraints is being summarized as if it were a ruler laid across history.

And yet we understand why this seduces people. The future is uncertain, and a line feels like knowledge. It feels like calculation without the pain of judgment. But a line cannot know why each previous bottom formed, who was forced to sell, who was free to buy, and what new information re priced the world.

Still, the analysts anchor their claim in the present drama. Bitcoin, they note, once traded above one hundred twenty six thousand dollars in October, and then slid down toward about seventy thousand dollars, revisiting levels last seen in November twenty twenty four. When a price returns to an old level, many observers treat it like destiny. But an old price is not a law of nature. It is a record of past trades under past conditions.

Now we reach the part where they try to explain not only the number, but the meaning. They borrow an analogy from the story of Benjamin Button, the character who grows younger as everyone else grows older. They suggest Bitcoin once behaved like that character: as the supply remained fixed at twenty one million Bitcoin, Bitcoin seemed to strengthen while the dollar weakened through repeated creation of new money.

Pause with us here, because this is where a real question lives. A fixed supply can indeed change the long run story of a money like good, but it does not abolish the short run reality that people hold assets for reasons, and sell them for reasons. Scarcity is not a shield against changing time preference, leverage, forced liquidation, or shifting expectations.

Their analogy turns darker. They say Bitcoin is now fraying, like a child who looks young but acts old, trapped playing piano for retirees. What they are pointing to is not poetry. It is a claim about correlation and regime change: Bitcoin used to rise when the dollar fell, but since the year twenty twenty five, they argue the relationship has reversed, and Bitcoin has fallen alongside the dollar.

Here we should ask you to notice something subtle. When someone says a relationship has reversed, they are confessing that yesterday’s simple rule did not hold. And once yesterday’s rule breaks, the mind becomes hungry for a new rule, even if the new rule is just another temporary pattern dressed as permanence.

They support this with an observation about the dollar index, which they say has fallen by nearly one percent this year after a decline near ten percent last year. The implication is clear: if the dollar is weakening and Bitcoin is no longer benefiting, then Bitcoin has lost its former role in this particular narrative.

But we must keep our feet on the ground. Correlation is not a cause. If Bitcoin falls while the dollar falls, it may tell you less about Bitcoin’s essence and more about the shared conditions pushing investors to reduce risk, meet obligations, or unwind crowded positions.

Now comes the next link in their chain: Bitcoin’s growing tendency to move with technology heavy equities, especially the Nasdaq one hundred index and growth stocks. This is not a mystical bond. It is a practical one. If many holders treat Bitcoin as a risk asset, then their buying and selling will naturally synchronize with other risk assets when fear or relief spreads through portfolios.

And what do they place at the center of this synchronization. Changes in expected interest rates and the tone of central bank communication. They note that interest rates were cut in the final three meetings of the year twenty twenty five, yet the messaging remained cautious, discouraging expectations of faster cuts ahead.

Here is a mid stream hook worth your attention: a cut that sounds restrictive can tighten conditions even while the number moves downward, because entrepreneurs and investors act on expectations, not on labels.

They then extend the argument to borrowing. If technology companies are borrowing more heavily, and if borrowing costs rise, then financial conditions tighten. Tighter conditions can compress valuations, pressure leveraged positions, and spill over into any asset that is held in the same speculative basket. In that world, Bitcoin does not need a special flaw to fall. It only needs to be owned by people who must sell when the margin clerk calls.

So what have we really uncovered together. Not a prophecy, but a structure of thought.

A straight line through past bottoms is an attempt to replace understanding with a shortcut. A movie analogy is an attempt to make a complex shift feel intuitive. And the talk of reversed relationships is an admission that the market is a living process, not a stable equation.

If you want the quiet truth beneath the forecast, it is this: prices are not guided by lines. They are guided by choices. And choices change when constraints change.

Let us end calmly. The number thirty eight thousand dollars may arrive, or it may never appear. But the deeper lesson is already here in plain sight: when people cannot explain a moving world, they reach for patterns that look certain. If you have seen that impulse in yourself, you have learned something worth keeping, and you may find it useful to write what you think the real driver is beneath the pattern, in your own words.