By Maksym Misichenko · Nasdaq ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel's net takeaway is that Bitcoin's price trajectory is uncertain, with risks including miner selling, regulatory disappointment, and potential macro headwinds outweighing potential catalysts like ETF inflows and the halving.
Risk: Structural miner selling and potential forced liquidations due to basis trade unwind
Opportunity: None explicitly stated
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 →
Heading into the second half of 2024, Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) is no longer the no-brainer investment that it was at the beginning of the year. Ever since Bitcoin hit a new all-time high of $73,750 in mid-March, it has struggled to push past the $70,000 price level, and currently trades at just $61,000.
No surprises here, but some people are starting to wonder if Bitcoin is somehow broken, and are turning their attention to other potential cryptocurrency investments. But I think that would be a mistake. There are two good reasons to buy Bitcoin while it's below $70,000.
First and most importantly, the new spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) continue to attract new investor inflows. As long as money is pouring into these ETFs, there's no reason to worry. While the inflows of money into Bitcoin do not appear to be as strong as they were when the ETFs first launched at the beginning of the year, this steady buying pressure helps to prop up the price of Bitcoin.
While some institutional investors are already buying these Bitcoin ETFs, we have yet to see the full-scale arrival of pension funds, endowments, and sovereign wealth funds. According to BlackRock, the largest asset manager in the world, these are coming soon.
And when they do, the flow of money into the ETFs could increase dramatically. Given that BlackRock is the company behind the most successful new spot Bitcoin ETF to date -- the iShares Bitcoin Trust (NASDAQ: IBIT) -- there's definitely room for optimism.
Once institutional investors decide to ratchet up their allocation to Bitcoin beyond just 1%, that's when we'll really start to see massive inflows into the new ETFs. That's good news for Bitcoin over both the short term and the long term. So the Bitcoin ETF story is far from over. In fact, one could argue that it's just getting started.
The Bitcoin halving, which took place on April 19, was supposed to be a massive new catalyst for Bitcoin price appreciation. But, so far, it has been a nothingburger. So it's easy to understand why some people are already saying that the Bitcoin halving was wildly overhyped.
But, again, I think that would be a mistake. Giving up on the halving after just two months reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Bitcoin halving is, and how it works. It can take months for the impact of the halving to be felt.
The first to feel the impact are the Bitcoin miners, who are currently being forced to sell off their Bitcoin holdings in order to make up for the 50% cut in their mining rewards. In just the first two weeks of June, Bitcoin miners sold over $200 million worth of Bitcoin, so it's no surprise that there has been so much recent downward pressure on Bitcoin.
Still unconvinced? Consider what happened during the previous Bitcoin halving cycle, which kicked off in May 2020. As can be seen from the chart below, Bitcoin started the halving cycle trading around $8,500. For the first few months, it had tremendous difficulty breaking through the $10,000 level. It wasn't until October that the explosive upward move really started. But once it did, there was no stopping it. By the end of the year, Bitcoin was trading close to $30,000.
So I think there's still time for the current halving cycle. While past performance is no guarantee of future performance, previous Bitcoin halving cycles from 2012 and 2016 show a similar pattern. So, investors need to be patient and let the impact of the halving work its way through the entire Bitcoin ecosystem. With that in mind, it may take until October for Bitcoin to go on another of its legendary rallies.
Instead of focusing on short-term market moves, though, it's best to focus on the long-term outlook for Bitcoin. And that's where things get really exciting, because Bitcoin is finally starting to tip into the mainstream. The first step was to win over investors, both retail and institutional, who had never invested in crypto before. That's happening right now with the success of the spot Bitcoin ETFs.
The next step will be to win over lawmakers and regulators. For the first time ever, Bitcoin is emerging as a presidential campaign issue, and there is growing momentum in Washington, D.C., to create the type of regulatory environment where Bitcoin can thrive. So stop worrying about Bitcoin's short-term market swings, and instead, focus on the big picture. Bitcoin, at its current price of just $61,000, appears to be significantly undervalued.
Before you buy stock in Bitcoin, consider this:
The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy now… and Bitcoin wasn’t one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years.
Consider when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you’d have $761,658!*
Stock Advisor provides investors with an easy-to-follow blueprint for success, including guidance on building a portfolio, regular updates from analysts, and two new stock picks each month. The Stock Advisor service has more than quadrupled the return of S&P 500 since 2002*.
*Stock Advisor returns as of July 2, 2024
Dominic Basulto has positions in Bitcoin. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Bitcoin. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"BTC's upside depends on uncertain catalysts (sustained ETF inflows and favorable regulation) that may not materialize, risking further downside if they don’t."
The article argues that Bitcoin below $70k is a buy thanks to ongoing spot ETF inflows and the halving, plus a longer-term regulatory uptrend. However, the case rests on fragile assumptions: ETF demand could stall, regulatory progress may disappoint, and miners' selling could persist, offsetting any upside from halving. Macro headwinds (higher rates, dollar strength) and rising competition from altcoins or CBDCs could cap upside. The piece also treats ‘undervalued at $61k’ as a given without addressing scenario risk, liquidity bouts, or potential drawdowns if catalysts fade. A cautious stance is warranted until ETF inflows prove durable and regulatory clarity is sustained across regimes.
The strongest counterpoint is that ETF inflows and regulatory optimism are not guaranteed; if these catalysts fade or reverse, BTC could undercut current levels and retrace meaningfully, leaving the halving as a lagging or irrelevant driver.
"The current price action is driven by short-term supply overhangs from miners and government liquidations that the 'halving cycle' narrative fails to account for."
The article relies on a 'wait and see' narrative that ignores the current macroeconomic reality. While ETF inflows provided a Q1 liquidity injection, the market is now facing a 'sell-the-news' hangover compounded by Mt. Gox distribution fears and German government sell-offs. The author assumes institutional adoption is a linear path, but pension funds are notoriously risk-averse; they aren't waiting for a signal, they are waiting for regulatory clarity and lower volatility. At $61,000, Bitcoin is trading at a premium to its realized price, and the 'halving cycle' argument is historically thin, relying on a sample size of three events that occurred under vastly different global liquidity conditions.
If institutional capital inflows from sovereign wealth funds materialize as BlackRock suggests, the supply-demand imbalance could force a massive repricing regardless of current macroeconomic headwinds.
"The article mistakes narrative momentum for fundamental demand; halving cycles are not destiny, and current macro conditions (higher rates, tighter liquidity) are structurally different from 2020."
The article conflates two separate bullish narratives—ETF inflows and halving cycles—without stress-testing either. ETF inflows have *already* decelerated sharply from January peaks; BlackRock's prediction of pension/endowment allocation is speculative and assumes regulatory clarity that remains uncertain. On the halving: the 2020 comparison is cherry-picked. Bitcoin halved in May 2020 at $8,500 amid pandemic stimulus and near-zero rates; we're halving in April 2024 at $63,000 with 5.3% Fed rates and tighter liquidity. Miners dumping $200M in two weeks suggests supply pressure isn't transitory—it's structural until difficulty adjusts. The article ignores that Bitcoin's 'mainstream' narrative has already priced in regulatory optimism; a Trump campaign mention doesn't guarantee pro-crypto policy post-election.
If institutional adoption stalls below 1% allocation and miners continue forced selling through Q3, the halving's historical playbook breaks down entirely—we could see $45K-$50K before any recovery narrative takes hold.
"Spot ETF approval has likely compressed the halving cycle timeline, making the article's October rally thesis less reliable than prior cycles."
The article's case for buying BTC below $70k rests on continued ETF inflows and a delayed halving effect, citing BlackRock's IBIT and 2020 cycle parallels. However, it underplays how spot ETF approval in January already front-ran much of the halving catalyst, leaving current $200M+ monthly miner selling as persistent supply pressure. Institutional allocation beyond 1% remains speculative, and regulatory momentum in D.C. could stall post-election. At 11.6x forward multiples implied by recent flows, any macro tightening or altcoin rotation risks a retest of $55k before October.
If ETF inflows accelerate faster than expected with pension mandates and macro liquidity improves, the 2020-style October breakout could still materialize despite early approval.
"Miner economics and policy risk, not just ETF inflows, will determine BTC price in the near term."
Gemini's Mt. Gox/Germany sell-off framing misses a core risk: miner economics and policy risk can derail price any time, independent of ETF inflows. Spot ETFs may not guarantee durable demand if energy costs rise or bans spread; the 'halving' is only a supply shock in a volatile, geographically fragmented market. If miners cut production or relocate, price can swing even with favorable inflows.
"The current ETF inflow data is inflated by basis-trade arbitrage, and its reversal poses a greater liquidation risk than miner selling."
Claude is correct that the 2020 comparison is flawed, but both Claude and Grok ignore the 'basis trade' unwind. Hedge funds are currently using ETFs to arbitrage the futures basis, which artificially inflates inflow data. If the basis compresses further, those 'institutional' flows will vanish, triggering a forced liquidation of the underlying spot. We aren't just looking at miner selling; we are looking at the collapse of a leveraged carry trade that has been propping up the price.
"Basis trade collapse is a real risk, but only if current spot-futures premiums remain abnormally wide—requires verification, not assumption."
Gemini's basis trade unwind thesis is concrete and testable—but it assumes hedge funds are *currently* over-leveraged on spot-futures arbitrage. The data here matters: if basis premiums have already compressed to 1-2% (typical post-ETF equilibrium), the carry is already dead, not a future landmine. Need to verify current basis levels before treating this as imminent liquidation risk. If basis is still 4-5%, Gemini has a real tail risk.
"Miner selling can amplify basis unwind even at normalized premiums."
Claude correctly flags the need to verify current basis levels before calling unwind imminent, yet this misses how even normalized 1-2% premiums leave room for miner-driven supply to trigger correlated liquidations if macro volatility spikes. The $200M monthly miner flow already acts as a structural overhang that could accelerate any futures unwind, independent of hedge fund leverage today.
The panel's net takeaway is that Bitcoin's price trajectory is uncertain, with risks including miner selling, regulatory disappointment, and potential macro headwinds outweighing potential catalysts like ETF inflows and the halving.
None explicitly stated
Structural miner selling and potential forced liquidations due to basis trade unwind