Standard Chartered Chief Analyst Forecasts Bitcoin Price by Year-End

cryptonews.ruPublished on 2026-08-20Last updated on 2026-08-20

Abstract

A chief analyst from Standard Chartered Bank predicts that Bitcoin could reach $100,000 by the end of the year. The analyst, Geoff Kendrick, stated that a breakout above the current price of $65,500 would confirm the cycle low has been reached. He cited the recent announcement by the U.S. Treasury Department to increase buybacks of long-term government bonds as a key positive factor. Kendrick believes such liquidity-supporting measures typically benefit Bitcoin, and its limited supply protects it from devaluation. He added that Bitcoin's future price trajectory will depend not only on internal market cycles but also on U.S. policy decisions affecting capital availability. This view aligns with recent comments from other analysts, like Katie Stockton of Fairlead Strategies, who suggested the prolonged decline in Bitcoin may have reached an "exhaustion point" with selling pressure beginning to ease.

A banking analyst is confident that a breakthrough above Bitcoin's current price of $65,500 would be able to confirm that the cycle minimum has already been reached.

"Investors should prepare for the asset price to reach the $100,000 mark by the end of the year," Kendrick suggested in a conversation with Cointelegraph.

The head of the digital assets division drew attention to the US Treasury Department's decision to increase the buyback of long-term government bonds. In the analyst's opinion, the maximum volume of operations with securities maturing in 10 to 20 years and 20 to 30 years will increase from $2 billion to at least $4 billion.

"The Treasury's announcement on Wednesday is exactly what Bitcoin likes," stated the Standard Chartered expert.

According to him, such government liquidity support measures usually have a favorable impact on the cryptocurrency, and limited supply protects Bitcoin from devaluation. Further BTC price dynamics will depend not only on internal market cycles but also on decisions by US authorities affecting capital availability, Kendrick added.

Earlier, the founder and managing partner of the American investment firm Fairlead Strategies, Katie Stockton, stated that the prolonged decline in Bitcoin had reached a "point of exhaustion," and selling pressure had begun to ease.

end-content

Related Questions

QAccording to Standard Chartered's chief analyst, what is the Bitcoin price prediction for the end of the year?

AThe chief analyst at Standard Chartered predicts that Bitcoin's price could reach $100,000 by the end of the year.

QWhat recent US Treasury action is seen as a positive factor for Bitcoin, according to the analyst?

AThe recent US Treasury decision to increase the buyback of long-term government bonds, doubling the maximum operation volume for certain maturities, is seen as a positive factor for Bitcoin.

QWhat condition does the analyst suggest would confirm the cycle low for Bitcoin has been reached?

AThe analyst suggests that a breakthrough above the current price of $65,500 would confirm that the cycle low has likely been reached.

QBesides internal market cycles, what else will influence Bitcoin's future price, according to the analyst?

AAccording to the analyst, Bitcoin's future price will also depend on US government decisions that affect capital availability.

QWhat did Katie Stockton of Fairlead Strategies say about the recent Bitcoin decline?

AKatie Stockton stated that the prolonged decline in Bitcoin has reached a 'point of exhaustion' and that selling pressure has begun to ease.

Related Reads

Jameson Lopp's BIP-110 Postmortem: Bitcoin Is Driven by Game Theory, Not Morality

Jameson Lopp's analysis concludes that BIP-110, a proposal to restrict arbitrary data (like inscriptions) on Bitcoin, failed due to economic and technical realities, not moral arguments. The proposal, championed by Luke Dashjr and others, aimed to "cleanse" the chain but never reached its 55% miner activation threshold. Upon its forced signaling deadline in August, only the OCEAN pool (with ~1% hash rate) supported it, creating a short-lived fork that quickly died as miners faced unredeemable block rewards. Lopp's earlier predictions about its economic infeasibility were proven correct. Technically, BIP-110 was flawed; workarounds to embed data compliant with its rules were demonstrated almost immediately, proving it couldn't achieve its stated goal. The debate often devolved into moralistic rhetoric, with supporters accusing opponents of supporting child exploitation material—a tactic Lopp criticizes as ineffective for building consensus. Lopp argues Bitcoin is driven by incentives and game theory, not morality. Past forks like Bitcoin Cash promised economic benefits, while BIP-110 offered only restrictions and reduced miner fees, gaining no substantial support from major economic players. He predicts the "puritans" behind the failed fork will continue complaining but their new chain will remain insignificant. The episode reaffirms that attempting to censor data on a permissionless, anti-censorship network like Bitcoin is a futile battle.

marsbit32m ago

Jameson Lopp's BIP-110 Postmortem: Bitcoin Is Driven by Game Theory, Not Morality

marsbit32m ago

Tokenization Scale Soars to $4.3 Billion, But Why Did Securitize Incur a $5.5 Million Loss?

Securitize's first quarterly report post-IPO reveals a paradox: while its tokenized assets under management hit a record $4.3 billion (up 16% YoY) and platform trading volume surged 147% to $5.3 billion, total revenue fell 5% to $14.4 million. Tokenization revenue specifically dropped ~12% to $7.8 million, leading to an adjusted EBITDA loss of $5.5 million. CFO Francisco Flores explained that most trading volume is not yet monetized, with the majority of tokenization revenue still coming from one-time projects like new protocol integrations. In contrast, asset servicing revenue, a more recurring stream, grew slightly to $6.6 million. The company has lowered its full-year revenue guidance to $70-$80 million from an initial projection of $110 million. Industry experts note this highlights a structural challenge for the tokenization sector. Scaling assets on-chain doesn't automatically scale a profitable business model. Current implementations often rely on costly, customized projects for each new asset or jurisdiction. The future, they argue, lies in building standardized infrastructure that generates recurring "infrastructure revenue" from post-issuance activities like compliance, distributions, and secondary trading—similar to enterprise software. Analysts caution against misinterpreting high trading volumes as indicative of a mature fee-based model, as Securitize's broad volume metric includes many non-monetized actions. The key test for the industry is whether adding billions in new assets can generate sustainable revenue without constant new custom projects.

marsbit34m ago

Tokenization Scale Soars to $4.3 Billion, But Why Did Securitize Incur a $5.5 Million Loss?

marsbit34m ago

The Five Paradoxes of Artificial Intelligence

**Five Paradoxes of Artificial Intelligence** Artificial intelligence (AI) is an era filled with paradoxes, which we navigate as we advance. **1. The Prediction Paradox** AI experts, from pioneers like Marvin Minsky to contemporary figures like Geoffrey Hinton and Demis Hassabis, have a history of inaccurate forecasts regarding AI's capabilities and timelines, such as achieving human-level machine intelligence or surpassing radiologists. Predictions about Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) vary wildly between optimistic entrepreneurs and skeptical academics, highlighting the inherent unpredictability of technological futures. **2. The Employment Quantification Paradox** Despite numerous studies from institutions like the OECD, IMF, and McKinsey attempting to quantify AI's impact on jobs, estimates of affected employment range from 0.4% to 67%, revealing vast inconsistencies. This paradox arises because isolating AI's effect from other economic, social, and technological factors is virtually impossible, and forecasts depend on static assumptions about a dynamically evolving technology. **3. The Productivity Paradox** While AI is a transformative General Purpose Technology, significant productivity growth has not yet materialized in major economies like the EU and has only matched historical averages in the US. This disconnect between rapid innovation and slow productivity gains, reminiscent of the "Solow Paradox" from the computer age, is often explained by time lags. History shows it takes decades for such technologies to diffuse and trigger complementary innovations that boost productivity. **4. The Data Value Paradox** Data is hailed as the "new oil" and critical for AI, yet its economic value is paradoxical. Its worth is realized only in use, not in straightforward trade. Despite policy emphasis and initiatives for data asset recognition on corporate balance sheets in China, the monetized value remains negligible—accounting for only about 0.06% of major telecom operators' total assets—highlighting the gap between perceived utility and financial valuation. **5. The Industrial Revolution Paradox** For decades, nearly every major new technology, from the internet and nanotechnology to blockchain and now AI, has been proclaimed as the driver of a "Fourth Industrial Revolution." This constant reassignment suggests prior labels were premature. True industrial revolutions are typically identified in hindsight, not in real-time. Furthermore, the coexistence of such a proclaimed transformative revolution with ongoing economic crises would be historically anomalous. Whether AI truly defines a new industrial revolution remains a narrative for the future to decide.

marsbit37m ago

The Five Paradoxes of Artificial Intelligence

marsbit37m ago

Trading

Spot
活动图片