Bitcoin death cross still present despite rally to $86K — Should BTC traders be afraid?

CointelegraphPublished on 2025-04-14Last updated on 2025-04-16

Abstract

Bitcoin’s recent rally brought the bulls back, but its confirmed death cross could be a warning to traders.

On April 6, Bitcoin price formed a death cross on a daily chart — a technical pattern where the 50-day moving average (MA) falls below the 200-day MA. Historically associated with trend reversals and long bearish trading periods, this ominous signal has sometimes preceded major market drawdowns.


The latest death cross comes amid growing macroeconomic uncertainty. Equities are reeling from what appears to be the early stages of a tariff war, volatility is rising, and fear continues to dominate investor sentiment. For some investors, Bitcoin’s death cross could be the final blow to hopes of a near-term rally. Early signs of capitulation from short-term holders may already be emerging.


Still, not everyone sees doom ahead.


Bitcoin death crosses history


By definition, a death cross confirms the end of a bullish phase. When the 50-day MA drops below the 200-day MA, it suggests recent price action has weakened relative to the longer-term trend. Its counterpart, the golden cross, occurs when the opposite happens — often heralding a new rally.


Since its inception, Bitcoin has experienced 10 such death crosses, with the 11th unfolding right now. Analyzing their dates and durations gives a major insight: every bear market included a death cross, but not every death cross has led to a bear market. This distinction is key to understanding the current setup.

BTC/USD 1-day death cross history (log). Source: Marie Poteriaieva, TradingViewIndeed, there are two types of death crosses: those that happen during bear markets and the rest. The three death crosses that formed during the bear markets of 2014-2015, 2018, and 2022 were long and painful. They lasted for 9 to 13 months and saw drawdowns between 55% and 68% from the day of the cross to the cycle bottom.


The remaining seven were far less severe. They lasted from 1.5 months to 3.5 months and saw Bitcoin decline anywhere from 27% to nothing at all. In many cases, these signals marked local bottoms and were followed by renewed rallies.
This brings us to the critical question: Is Bitcoin already in a bear market, or is this another bear trap?


A bearish signal?


If Bitcoin is indeed in bear territory, as CryptoQuant CEO Ki Young Ju believes, the current death cross could signal 6 to 12 more months of downward price action. This outlook aligns with his observations of the difference between the current market cap and the realized cap (average cost basis for each wallet x amount of BTC held).


“If Realized Cap is growing, but Market Cap is stagnant or falling, it means capital is flowing in, but prices aren’t rising—a classic bearish signal.”


Current data clearly points to the latter, Ki Young Ju adds.


“Sell pressure could ease anytime, but historically, real reversals take at least six months—so a short-term rally seems unlikely.”

BTC growth rate difference. Source: CryptoQuant

Other market participants disregard the presence of the death cross. Crypto analyst Mister Crypto argued that the current death cross is a setup for a rally rather than a slide. “The trap is set again. This will be the most hated rally of 2025!” he posted alongside a chart showing previous false signals of this cycle.

Bitcoin death cross during the bull market. Source: Mister CryptoCoinShares head of research James Butterfill also downplayed the signal’s significance. As he put it,
“For those of you that think the Bitcoin death cross means anything - empirically, it's total nonsense, and in fact, often a good buying opportunity.” 


Butterfill’s data shows that, on average, Bitcoin prices are only slightly lower one month after a death cross (-3.2%) and often higher three months out.


Interestingly, Bitcoin isn’t the only asset flashing warning signs. The Nasdaq 100 and S&P 500 are both on the verge of forming their own death crosses, while individual tech stocks — including Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Alphabet — have already triggered them or are close to doing so. 


Bitcoin’s recent move is part of a larger market reset, for better or for worse. At the moment, however, it leans more toward the "worse" side: as some analysts point out, what’s bad for the Nasdaq tends to be bad for Bitcoin, too. Unless, of course, Bitcoin fully claims its role as digital gold.


This article does not contain investment advice or recommendations. Every investment and trading move involves risk, and readers should conduct their own research when making a decision.

Related Reads

Why Does Hyperliquid Earn Less Than Coinbase?

Hyperliquid, a decentralized exchange, processes near-Nasdaq-level perpetual trading volumes but captures significantly lower fees compared to centralized platforms like Coinbase and Robinhood. While Hyperliquid cleared $205.6 billion in notional volume over 30 days, it generated only $80.3 million in fees—an effective take rate of ~3.9 bps. In contrast, Coinbase and Robinhood achieve take rates of ~35.5 bps and ~33.5 bps, respectively, by operating as retail brokers that monetize multiple layers: distribution, balances, subscriptions, and order flow. This gap stems from a structural difference: Hyperliquid positions itself as a low-fee *market layer* (like Nasdaq), providing high-throughput execution and清算 infrastructure, while brokers like Coinbase control user relationships and extract value through higher-margin activities. Hyperliquid’s model includes permissionless distributor frontends (Builder Codes) and product deployment (HIP-3), which drive ecosystem growth but also create long-term fee compression risks by outsourcing high-value distribution. To defend its economics, Hyperliquid is taking steps to retain distribution control, integrate HIP-3 markets natively, and introduce balance-driven revenue streams like USDH (a native stablecoin with 50% reserve收益 sharing) and portfolio margin (10% interest fee on borrows). These moves aim to shift its model from pure exchange-level execution toward a hybrid approach that captures broker-like profit pools—without sacrificing its core infrastructure advantages. The key challenge remains balancing open ecosystem growth with tighter economic integration to avoid being commoditized as a wholesale execution venue.

marsbit11m ago

Why Does Hyperliquid Earn Less Than Coinbase?

marsbit11m ago

Public Chains 2025: The Bustle Belongs to the Casino, the Desolation to the Ecosystem

The 2025 public blockchain landscape reveals a stark divide between hype and reality, with a severe concentration of value and widespread "zombification" of projects. Analysis of DeFiLlama's on-chain fee data exposes a critical structural issue: the crypto space is dominated by a "profit concentration and long-tail zombie" era. Notable examples highlight this crisis. Algorand, a chain with a $1 billion market cap and advanced technology, generated a mere $17 in daily fees, while Cardano, a top-10 asset, saw only around $6,000. These "classic chains" are likened to empty, expensive cities with no real economic activity. The biggest value capturers are not the most technologically elegant chains. Tron leads with $1.24 million in daily fees, succeeding as a low-cost payment rail for USDT transfers—crypto's only true mass-adoption use case. Solana ($600k daily) thrives as a high-frequency casino for meme coins and speculation, and Base ($105k daily) demonstrates that distribution (via Coinbase) is more critical than pure technology. The only validated business models generating significant fees are low-cost payments, high-frequency speculation, and, to a lesser extent, Ethereum's asset settlement layer. The VC-driven model is failing. New chains like Sui, Sei, and Starknet, which raised hundreds of millions, show a severe disconnect between their high valuations and meager daily fee revenue (ranging from $320 to $12,000). Their lifecycle often follows a "pump and dump" pattern: VC funding -> airdrop farming -> token listing -> user exodus -> collapsed on-chain activity. The industry suffers from a massive oversupply of block space with a dire lack of killer applications. The article concludes that investors must shift from valuing narratives to scrutinizing financials. They should avoid "zombie coins" with high valuations and negligible fees, focus on chains with organic, fee-generating demand, acknowledge that distribution and community are now more valuable than pure tech, and see through the VC subsidy game. This is a necessary market correction; only by paying for real, generated value—not promised future stories—can the industry achieve healthy growth.

比推38m ago

Public Chains 2025: The Bustle Belongs to the Casino, the Desolation to the Ecosystem

比推38m ago

Trading

Spot
Futures

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of BTC (BTC) are presented below.

活动图片