Analyst Exposes Bitcoin Market Maker Buy Strategy, Shows What Happens When Accumulation Ends

bitcoinistPublished on 2026-04-18Last updated on 2026-04-18

Abstract

A crypto analyst, Merlijn The Trader, has presented a market structure model suggesting Bitcoin is following an institutional trading cycle. The model outlines four key phases: a "Distribution" phase where large holders sold BTC near highs, a sharp "Flush" that dropped prices 38% to eliminate weak traders, the current "Accumulation" phase where institutions are buying in a tight range between $60k-$77k, and a future "Re-accumulation" period. The analyst projects that once accumulation ends, Bitcoin could break out to new all-time highs, with a potential target above $142,000 by early 2027. Holding above the $70,000 resistance level is critical for this bullish scenario to remain valid.

A crypto analyst has outlined a detailed market structure, suggesting that Bitcoin (BTC) may be entering a decisive stage after months of consolidation and price declines. His strategy maps recent price behavior into a sequence of institutionally driven phases, arguing that the end of accumulation often signals the start of a stronger upward expansion.

The Bitcoin MarketMaker Buy Strategy

Crypto market expert Merlijn The Trader has presented a market structure model on X, showing that Bitcoin’s recent price action is unfolding in line with an institutional trading cycle. The chart framework, known as the MarketMaker Buy Model, argues that large institutional players move markets in predictable stages designed to transfer Bitcoin from emotional retail traders into stronger, long-term holders before pushing prices significantly higher.

According to the analyst, the first stage of the cycle, highlighted in the first green box on the chart, began with a “Distribution” phase that occurred between about $100,000 and $120,000 in mid-2024. During this period, Bitcoin traded in a choppy downward pattern. This type of movement indicated that large holders were selling their Bitcoin amid strong demand from retail traders buying aggressively near the market top.

The second stage identified by Merlijn The Trader is the “Flush,” marked by the red box on the chart. This phase saw a sharp and aggressive price decline designed to force weaker traders out of the market. Here, Bitcoin reportedly fell from $100,000 to $62,000, a roughly 38% drop.

Source: Chart from Merlijn The Trader on X

Following this correction, the MarketMaker model transitions into the “Accumulation” phase, represented by the larger grey box on the chart. According to the model, this is the stage where the market is currently consolidating. Merlijn The Trader places this phase between roughly $60,000 and $77,000.

Within this zone, Bitcoin is trading in a relatively tight and choppy range rather than trending strongly in one direction. The sideways movement during this period also suggests that Bitcoin is building a foundation near a potential price bottom, as institutional buyers gradually accumulate more coins.

In the fourth stage, Merlijn The Trader identifies the two blue boxes on the chart as a “Re-accumulation.” This zone, between approximately $80,000 and $95,000, marks a secondary consolidation period that typically follows a price bottom. This phase provides another opportunity for large investors to strengthen their positions before BTC potentially begins its next upward movement.

What’s Next For BTC After Accumulation

Looking ahead, Merlijn The Trader projects a potential upside target above $142,000 once Bitcoin emerges from its accumulation and re-accumulation phases. In his chart model, the path to this level may involve another short consolidation period before a possible breakout into new all-time highs by January 2027.

The analyst also highlights a key resistance level around $70,000. Holding above this resistance is critical to maintaining the integrity of the MarketMaker model. Meanwhile, falling below the level suggests the structure may not be following the expected path.

BTC trading at $75,550 on the 1D chart | Source: BTCUSDT on Tradingview.com

Related Questions

QWhat is the name of the market structure model presented by the analyst Merlijn The Trader?

AThe MarketMaker Buy Model.

QAccording to the model, what is the purpose of the 'Flush' phase?

AThe 'Flush' phase is a sharp and aggressive price decline designed to force weaker traders out of the market.

QIn which price range is the current 'Accumulation' phase taking place, according to the analyst?

AThe 'Accumulation' phase is taking place between roughly $60,000 and $77,000.

QWhat is the potential upside price target for Bitcoin once it emerges from the accumulation phases?

AThe potential upside price target is above $142,000.

QWhat is the critical resistance level that Bitcoin must hold above to maintain the integrity of the MarketMaker model?

AThe critical resistance level is around $70,000.

Related Reads

Bank of Japan Signals Interest Rate Hike Despite Keeping Them at 1%

The Bank of Japan (BOJ) kept its benchmark interest rate at 1% on July 31, as widely expected, following a June hike to a 31-year high. The decision passed with an 8-1 vote, with board member Hajime Takata again dissenting in favor of a hike to 1.25%. Despite holding rates steady, the BOJ signaled a hawkish tilt, warning that underlying inflation is likely to accelerate and exceed 2% from the latter half of the fiscal year. While it slightly lowered its core inflation forecast for FY2026, officials expressed stronger confidence that an overshoot will occur later, driven by yen weakness, corporate pricing behavior, and lingering energy shock effects. Markets were focused on the BOJ's forward guidance. Analysts noted the central bank appeared to balance short-term caution with a long-term warning of tighter policy. Governor Kazuo Ueda faces the challenge of reconciling a government reluctant to tighten further with bond markets already pricing in additional hikes, with the timing of the next move debated. Adding complexity, the BOJ reportedly intervened in currency markets hours before the rate decision, buying yen to support the currency which had fallen to 40-year lows against the dollar. Yen weakness stems from the wide U.S.-Japan interest rate gap, high fuel prices, and market skepticism about the pace of BOJ policy normalization. The yield on Japan's 10-year government bonds fell to 2.8%, indicating investor expectations for future monetary tightening.

cryptonews.ru4m ago

Bank of Japan Signals Interest Rate Hike Despite Keeping Them at 1%

cryptonews.ru4m ago

Why Are Leveraged ETFs like 7709 Inherently Negative EV Products?

This article argues that the SK H力士 2x Leveraged ETF (7709) is fundamentally a negative expected value (EV) product, rather than simply a "double SK H力士" investment. Its core issue stems from its daily rebalancing mechanism to maintain a 2x leverage target. After a price move, the fund must buy more after a rise or sell after a fall to readjust its leverage, creating a systematic pattern of buying high and selling low. This introduces a "delay loss": it always reacts to past price changes, missing potential gains from adjusting earlier during an uptrend and suffering greater losses from adjusting later during a downtrend. While more frequent intraday rebalancing would improve returns in strong, smooth trending markets by reinvesting profits or cutting losses sooner, it also dramatically increases volatility drag (frictional losses) during choppy, oscillating markets due to more frequent high-buy/low-sell trades. The author draws a parallel to an option seller who delta hedges (short gamma), which involves similar "buy high, sell low" dynamic hedging. However, unlike an option seller who receives upfront premium (IV and theta) as compensation for this risk, the leveraged ETF investor receives no such compensation. Instead, they bear all the path-dependent volatility decay, plus additional costs like swap/derivatives financing, management fees, and trading slippage. Thus, the product's return profile can be framed as: 2x directional return minus realized variance drag minus financing costs minus derivatives costs minus management fees minus transaction costs. For the investor to profit, SK H力士's price must not only rise significantly but do so in a strong, sustained, and smooth trend to overcome these inherent structural costs. High volatility and frequent price reversals are particularly damaging. The article also notes that while the ETF has no explicit liquidation line like perpetual futures, avoiding a sudden "blow-up," its net asset value can still decay towards zero over time through this combination of volatility drag and fees. For experienced traders, directly managing leverage via perpetual contracts may offer more control and potentially lower costs than this packaged, mechanistic product.

marsbit11m ago

Why Are Leveraged ETFs like 7709 Inherently Negative EV Products?

marsbit11m ago

'Backstabbing' or 'Win-Win'? How Likely Is TradeXYZ to Break Away from Hyperliquid and Go Solo?

The article discusses the growing debate over whether TradeXYZ, which dominates Hyperliquid's HIP-3 market with over 90% of its volume, might break away to build its own independent trading platform. This possibility is fueled by TradeXYZ's immense market influence and the common industry trend of successful projects seeking more control and profit capture. Key arguments for a potential split include TradeXYZ's overwhelming contribution to Hyperliquid's metrics and the financial incentive to retain all transaction fees, as it currently splits them 50/50 with Hyperliquid. The piece draws parallels to other cases, like Anthropic's "Claude Code" competing with its former partner Cursor, suggesting "betrayal" can occur when business leverage shifts. However, strong counterarguments suggest a split is unlikely or would be detrimental. TradeXYZ relies on Hyperliquid's high-performance infrastructure and its platform as a primary user acquisition channel. Building a comparable system would be challenging. Furthermore, the founders of both projects share a history of trust and mutual admiration. The analysis concludes that a separation would likely be a lose-lose scenario: Hyperliquid would lose a major growth narrative and trading volume, while TradeXYZ would face technical hurdles, user migration issues, and reputational damage, potentially allowing competitors to seize market share. The most rational path is seen as continued collaboration, with TradeXYZ potentially negotiating better terms while leveraging Hyperliquid's established strengths.

marsbit20m ago

'Backstabbing' or 'Win-Win'? How Likely Is TradeXYZ to Break Away from Hyperliquid and Go Solo?

marsbit20m ago

Trading

Spot
活动图片