Bitcoin’s sagging price has crypto bears taking a victory lap. Why it’s too soon to count it out.
By Maksym Misichenko · Yahoo Finance ·
By Maksym Misichenko · Yahoo Finance ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel consensus is bearish on Bitcoin's near-term outlook, citing institutional outflows, miner financing fragility, and potential regulatory uncertainty. They agree that Bitcoin may consolidate or test lower levels before any long-term recovery.
Risk: Miners capitulating and selling into weakness, potentially triggering cascading losses.
Opportunity: A potential recovery in 2026, contingent on regulatory clarity and improved liquidity conditions.
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
While U.S. stocks have kept notching record highs, bitcoin is sliding to its weakest level in months, leaving some investors wondering what they had gotten themselves into.
Bitcoin BTCUSD slumped as low as $61,348 on Thursday, its lowest level since February. U.S. spot bitcoin ETFs have posted 12 straight days of outflows, the longest streak since the products began trading in January 2024, according to Dow Jones Market Data. Investors have pulled $3.97 billion from the funds over that stretch, the second-largest 12-day outflow on record.
The selloff is raising uncomfortable questions for investors, beyond how quickly it might take for crypto prices to recover. It is testing many long-held theories about bitcoin’s place in the broader universe of tradeable assets. Some are wondering why bitcoin is struggling while semiconductor stocks and other AI-linked names have been swept up in a powerful momentum-driven rally. And as price pressures have started to accelerate once again, bitcoin is proving that it isn’t much of an inflation hedge, despite its reputation.
That has left the pioneering cryptocurrency in an awkward position. The speculative trade that powered bitcoin higher has clearly cooled, but the current despair may also be part of the late-stage bear-market process that has preceded past recoveries, analysts said.
“For those investors that were buying this as a lottery ticket or a way to get your outsized investment returns, it’s going to be a while before we get there,” said Mark Hackett, chief market strategist for Nationwide’s Investment Management Group.
On social-media platforms like X, some investors have loudly proclaimed that after years of serving as the dominant cryptocurrency, bitcoin might finally be lurching toward irrelevance.
Investors have seen this pattern before. Every time a major bitcoin bear market arrives, there is an inevitable rush of grave dancing by crypto bulls and skeptics alike.
But investors should avoid jumping to conclusions, and not only because those who have prognosticated bitcoin’s demise have been wrong in the past.
Why bitcoin has tumbled
The investment case for holding bitcoin with the hope of broader sovereign adoption, or as an insurance policy against some extreme outcome, remains intact, Hackett said.
Still, “the disappointing thing here is bitcoin hasn’t acted the way that it was put out,” he noted. “If you’ve seen inflation do what it’s done, and oil prices CL00 BRN00 and geopolitical uncertainty and government spending, this is the time that bitcoin is supposed to be shining.”
Meanwhile, the retail investors who once chased bitcoin higher have shifted their attention to other areas of the market, including artificial intelligence and potential initial public offerings from AI-related companies, according to Ryan Rasmussen, head of research at crypto asset manager Bitwise Asset Management.
“It’s no secret that AI dominates every headline right now, as AI-related stocks are showing really strong performance and absorbing all that attention and capital from the crypto market,” Rasmussen said.
That rotation has helped deepen the pressure on bitcoin, according to Jim Ferraioli, head of crypto research and strategy at Charles Schwab. Crypto investors tend to chase momentum, he noted: When crypto is working, they add exposure; when it is not, they look elsewhere.
“I think people are selling what’s out of favor right now to position for or add to what is working,” Ferraioli said.
Adding to the pressure is Strategy’s MSTR rare recent sale of bitcoin. The company said Monday that it sold 32 bitcoins between May 26 and May 31 for about $2.5 million. While the sale was tiny compared with Strategy’s remaining holdings of 843,706 bitcoins, it landed hard symbolically. Strategy has been one of the market’s most visible bitcoin buyers, while Michael Saylor, the company’s executive chair, has long been an advocate of holding bitcoin through almost any market condition.
However, analysts said the company does not appear to be in imminent danger of liquidating its bitcoin holdings. The sale has been seen more as a signal of shifting sentiment than as evidence of financial distress at Strategy.
What’s next?
Bitcoin may be nearing an important support level in the low $60,000s, according to Schwab’s Ferraioli.
For one, the most efficient miners can still produce bitcoin at costs in the low $60,000s, creating a potential fundamental floor. Meanwhile, bitcoin’s 200-week moving average, a technical level closely watched in growth assets, is also around $61,000.
Those metrics have historically been associated with bottoms in past crypto bear markets, Ferraioli said. However, he cautioned that bitcoin’s price and mining costs can influence each other if prices fall far enough to force miners to temporarily shut down operations.
In any case, Ferraioli does not expect bitcoin to quickly return to records.
Instead, 2026 is more likely to be a recovery year, he said, with investors needing time and a sustained improvement in momentum before they return in force. Summer has historically been a weaker period for bitcoin, while October, November and December have tended to be stronger months, creating the possibility of a better setup later in the year, he noted.
Regulation could also help if the timing lines up. Ferraioli pointed to the Clarity Act, a digital-asset market-structure bill being worked on in the U.S. Senate, as a possible catalyst if it advances. Its passage could help restore investor confidence in the second half of the year, particularly if it arrives as bitcoin’s seasonal backdrop becomes more favorable.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"Near-term downside risk remains as ETF outflows persist, but a durable upside hinges on regulatory clarity and new inflows that could unlock a faster, later-stage rebound."
The article frames BTC as briefly oversold, anchored by 12 straight days of U.S. spot-ETFs outflows and a rotation into AI names. Yet it misses two things: (1) miners’ cost floor near $60k–$61k acts as a credible support, not a gimmick, and (2) regulatory clarity (e.g., potential Clarity Act provisions) could unlock meaningful inflows that reverse the ETF outflow trend. The price around $61k sits in a zone where long-term demand, macro hedging value, and a coming halving cycle could reprice BTC higher if liquidity conditions improve. The risk is timing: near-term headwinds could persist even as an eventual multi-quarter rebound is plausible with the right policy and liquidity backdrop.
The strongest counter is that institutional demand could accelerate as regulatory clarity improves and BTC remains a macro hedging asset, potentially catalyzing a swift rebound rather than extended weakness.
"Bitcoin is currently trading as a high-beta momentum play rather than a macro hedge, making its near-term price action entirely dependent on liquidity rotation away from AI-linked equities."
The narrative that Bitcoin is failing as an 'inflation hedge' misses the structural reality of the current liquidity environment. We aren't seeing a failure of the asset class; we are seeing a violent rotation into AI-driven growth, where the opportunity cost of holding non-yielding crypto has spiked. The 12-day outflow trend in spot ETFs suggests institutional 'hot money' is exiting to chase the NVDA-led momentum. However, the $61,000 floor is critical—not just as a technical level, but as the marginal cost of production for miners post-halving. If the Fed maintains higher-for-longer rates, Bitcoin will continue to trade as a high-beta tech proxy rather than digital gold, likely consolidating until Q4.
If the 'digital gold' thesis is truly dead, Bitcoin lacks the cash-flow fundamentals to support its current valuation, meaning a breach of the $60,000 support level could trigger a cascading liquidation of over-leveraged long positions.
"Bitcoin's inability to perform as an inflation or uncertainty hedge during the current macro environment reveals a broken thesis that seasonal or regulatory hopes are unlikely to repair quickly."
Bitcoin's 12-day ETF outflow streak totaling $3.97B and failure to rally amid accelerating inflation, oil spikes, and geopolitical tension directly contradict its marketed narrative as a non-sovereign hedge. Retail capital is rotating structurally into AI names rather than pausing, while MicroStrategy's (MSTR) symbolic sale of 32 BTC signals even committed holders are trimming. Historical support at miner costs near $60k and the 200-week MA may hold price temporarily, but sustained momentum absence points to a longer consolidation or lower lows before any 2026 recovery. Regulatory catalysts like the Clarity Act remain uncertain in timing and impact.
The low-$60k zone has repeatedly marked cycle lows because efficient miners cannot produce below that level without shutting down, creating a hard floor that has preceded every prior rebound regardless of narrative shifts.
"Bitcoin's current weakness reflects not cyclical despair but permanent loss of retail momentum to AI, and the institutional adoption thesis remains unproven and priced in despite zero regulatory clarity."
The article frames bitcoin's weakness as cyclical despair before recovery, but conflates two distinct problems: (1) retail rotation into AI—a temporary attention shift, not fundamental rejection, and (2) bitcoin's failure as an inflation hedge despite $3.97B in ETF outflows over 12 days. The real risk isn't that bitcoin dies; it's that institutional adoption thesis (the 'sovereign adoption' case Hackett mentions) remains speculative while retail momentum—historically bitcoin's fuel—has genuinely migrated elsewhere. The $61k 'floor' based on miner economics is circular logic: it only holds if miners don't capitulate. Ferraioli's 2026 recovery call requires two years of sideways price action, which is bearish for near-term holders masquerading as long-term believers.
Bitcoin could re-accelerate if geopolitical risk (Ukraine, Taiwan, Middle East) spikes or if the Fed cuts rates faster than priced, restoring risk appetite—the article's own inflation/uncertainty setup actually argues FOR bitcoin if macro deteriorates rather than stabilizes.
"Miner financing risk could break the $60k floor and trigger a deeper pullback toward the high-$50k zone before halving-driven supply tightens."
Grok's '60k floor' framing ignores the fragility of miner financing. Even with efficient marginal production near $60k, energy cost spikes, debt maturities, or hash-rate-driven capitulations can force large miners to sell into weakness, turning a supposed floor into a trigger for cascading losses. ETF outflows plus macro risk imply a non-linear path: a shallow dip could test $58k–$59k before miners reset, rather than a clean rebound once halving vibes kick in.
"The ETF outflow is driven by the unwinding of basis trades, which creates reflexive selling pressure that ignores traditional miner-cost support levels."
Claude is right to call out the 'miner floor' as circular, but everyone is ignoring the actual liquidity drain: the $3.97B ETF outflow isn't just rotation; it's a structural deleveraging of the basis trade. When institutional arb desks unwind these positions, they aren't just selling BTC; they are liquidating the underlying collateral. This creates a reflexive feedback loop that technical support levels like $61k cannot stop, regardless of miner break-evens or AI hype cycles.
"Oil-driven miner cost increases could breach the $60k floor quicker than ETF deleveraging alone predicts."
Gemini overstates the reflexive loop from ETF basis trades. Those arbs unwind gradually and often hedge with futures, limiting spot pressure. The overlooked connection is how oil spikes ChatGPT flagged could raise miner energy costs above $60k, forcing sales that amplify any deleveraging. This macro-miner interaction risks breaching the floor faster than liquidity arguments alone suggest, especially with MSTR trimming already signaling holder fatigue.
"ETF outflows signal rotation, not forced deleveraging; lower spot prices could attract basis traders back, creating a bid floor independent of miner break-evens."
Gemini's basis-trade deleveraging thesis is mechanically sound, but assumes institutional arb desks are forced sellers rather than opportunistic buyers at lower spot prices. The $3.97B outflow could equally reflect rebalancing into higher-conviction AI positions, not panic liquidation. If spot dips to $58k–$59k, basis traders actually have *more* incentive to re-establish positions, creating a bid floor that miner economics alone wouldn't explain. The reflexive loop works both directions.
The panel consensus is bearish on Bitcoin's near-term outlook, citing institutional outflows, miner financing fragility, and potential regulatory uncertainty. They agree that Bitcoin may consolidate or test lower levels before any long-term recovery.
A potential recovery in 2026, contingent on regulatory clarity and improved liquidity conditions.
Miners capitulating and selling into weakness, potentially triggering cascading losses.