Authors: Victor, Mr. Z
Three End-of-Bear-Market Scenarios for Bitcoin, Analysis of Four Bottom-Fishing Models
In June 2026, Bitcoin once broke below the 60,000 psychological level left in February, briefly touching around 59,000 before rebounding and consolidating, sparking intense debate about whether the "bear market bottom is in." While AI and semiconductors surged wildly in the stock market, the crypto market seemed exceptionally quiet. At this juncture of sharp divergence between bulls and bears and wild swings in sentiment, 168X invited Mr. Beggar (@market_beggar), a full-time trader specializing in on-chain analysis and technical analysis.
Mr. Beggar was among the first to call for a top and liquidate BTC holdings in late 2024 to early 2025, when almost the entire internet was bullish. Later, he gradually established coin-denominated short positions with low leverage, a judgment validated by subsequent market movements. His trading framework can be summarized as: spot trading relies on on-chain analysis, while futures and derivatives trading rely on technical analysis, each serving its purpose. In this dialogue, he dissects on-chain data like Cointime Price and AVIV, along with concepts like stop hunting for liquidity, presenting a clear judgment: the current state is not far from the cycle bottom, but perhaps still needs "one last shudder." Facing the AI and semiconductor frenzy, he repeatedly emphasized a crucial investment concept for retail investors: Always stay within your own "strike zone," and never buy something just because "it's going up."
I. Research Framework: The "Dichotomy" Trading System—On-Chain for Spot, Technical Analysis for Futures
Mr. Z: It's an honor to have you here today, Mr. Beggar. You're one of the few who can explain Bitcoin on-chain analysis so vividly; the liquidity at each price point is clear at a glance. Could you briefly introduce yourself first, and then describe BTC's current state in one sentence?
Mr. Beggar: Thank you for the invitation. I currently mainly run the Twitter account Mr. Beggar, sharing content focused on BTC's on-chain analysis and, in another part, technical analysis. My technical analysis is based on Liquidity analysis, a relatively niche school, somewhat similar to what some know as SMC (Smart Money Concept), but I've adapted it based on conditions specific to the crypto market. For example, I incorporate analysis of taker (market order side) and maker (limit order side), which is too complex to explain briefly; we can discuss it later.
As for BTC's current phase, in one sentence: the final bottom of the bear market may not be here yet, but it's very close. I believe in any financial market, whether US stocks, Taiwanese stocks, even crypto or forex, time is the hardest to predict, so I tend to focus on space—that is, price. Looking at today's BTC price around 63,000, or the early June low of 59,000, I think 59,000 is already very close to this bear market's final bottom, but it's not there yet. Or rather, the bottom I'm expecting might be a bit lower than 59,000. So, back to the question, BTC's current market phase, in my personal bias, is the tail end of the bear market, but there might still be a short stretch to go.
II. Three Scenarios for the Bear Market End: Why Breaking Below 59K and Sweeping Liquidity Below is Healthier
Mr. Z: Wow, that's disheartening to hear. I just went long at 62,000 yesterday, and I'm also long SpaceX at 170, holding heavy positions with some strain today, my shoulders are a bit sore. If you were to categorize BTC's potential next moves into three paths, how would you classify them, and which has the highest probability?
Mr. Beggar: Bitcoin created a low point in the first week of June, on June 5th, breaking below the 60,000 low from February. Immediately after breaking, it started rebounding, so it looks somewhat like a false breakdown. In the liquidity analysis framework, I'd call this liquidity hunting, or stop hunt.
However, we cannot conclude it's definitely a liquidity hunt leading to a reversal and bottom formation just because it broke the previous low and then recovered above it. We need to look at the consolidation that began after the break—that is, the price action from June 5th to today. We call this "consolidation after a trending move." Bitcoin has a very clear tendency: after a trending move, whether a sharp rally or a sharp drop, it invariably enters a period of sideways consolidation to digest the previous move, and then makes its next directional choice towards the end. Our task is to extract as much information as possible from this sideways consolidation structure to judge whether it will move up or down next.
Looking at this small consolidation phase since early June, I personally feel it's on the weaker side, which is why I mentioned earlier that I think breaking below the 59,000 low from early June again would be healthier.
As for the upcoming moves, the three scenarios mentioned earlier: first is a direct downward probe, second is a move up to sweep liquidity first and then fall, and third is no new low, directly forming a right-handed reversal.
The first and second are both shorter-term moves. In trading, the shorter the timeframe you look at, the more noise you encounter. So, I think the probability of these two scenarios is about the same; I can't judge which is higher from current information. But if forced to choose, I'd lean towards the first one, because once this consolidation structure produces clear signals—for example, if near the June 15th high around 67,300, we see a clear stop hunt: price slowly rises to 67,300, immediately gets hammered down with relatively high volume (i.e., taker market sell orders entering)—then we'd say the stop hunt at 67,300 may have formed, and the consolidation structure since early June is likely nearing its end, possibly about to conclude.
This concept is somewhat similar to February to May this year, when Bitcoin consolidated from 60,000, coinciding with the US-Iran conflict, repeatedly washing out positions, finally sweeping liquidity at the high around 80,000-82,000 we had mapped out early, and then began falling. The consolidation from last November to January this year, from 80,000 to 97,000, followed the exact same pattern: a sharp drop first, then consolidation, and at the last moment sweeping the previous highs once, completing a stop hunt before falling again. Scaling it down, the current movement from June 5th to today also resembles that structure. But this is just an observable signal; it could also go down directly.
As for the third scenario, "no new low, directly forming a right-handed reversal," why do I not really consider it? The reason is simple: the consolidation structure from June 5th to today has accumulated too much liquidity underneath. Based on information from my usual liquidity analysis framework, the zone from around 62,300, 60,700 down to 59,000 currently harbors quite a bit of liquidity. If the price goes up from here without returning, I wouldn't consider the ultimate bottom to be in—here I'm talking about the final cyclical bottom. On smaller timeframes, as long as this liquidity isn't swept, it will have to return eventually.
This is exactly like the period from February to May: back then, when it rose to 79k, 80k, 82k, many thought the bull market was back, shouting about breaking 81k, trend reversal, right-handed signals. But my posts at that time consistently stated—still visible now—that I believed there was a trendline liquidity around 60k-65k that would inevitably be hunted, a concept very similar to now. So the conclusion: a direct downward probe, or moving up to sweep liquidity first and then down, these two have roughly similar probabilities; the third right-handed reversal I don't really consider. The ultimate bottom likely still needs to break below 59,000 to form.
III. What is Liquidity: Equal Highs/Lows and Trendline Liquidity, Why You Can See It with Naked Charts
Mr. Z: I'm curious, when you talk about liquidity, are you mainly looking at buy-side pressure at that price level, or using some indicator?
Mr. Beggar: Many people look at so-called liquidation maps or heat maps; I don't look at those indicators. What I look at is very simple: directly at the chart. I wrote a popular science post before describing the two main, simplest-to-identify types of liquidity.
The first is equal high or equal low, appearing as wicks at almost the same horizontal level on the chart. If it's an equal low, the shape is somewhat like a 'W,' but the low on the right must not be lower than the low on the left, forming two lows at nearly identical levels. The concept is the same for equal highs.
The second is more complex: trendline liquidity, somewhat like the current structure from June 5th to today. It's sloping; you can draw something very similar to a trendline. During the consolidation, it gradually creates higher lows, but the extent of these lows is quite similar. So once it breaks one low, it will impulsively move down some distance, forming a close with another low, then gets broken again, forming a close with the previous low—this is the source of its liquidity.
So I'm not looking at indicators or the order book; I can see it purely from the chart patterns. An additional point: at least in the last five years, Bitcoin has had only one equal low, one liquidity that hasn't been hunted; all other liquidity eventually gets hunted, with a probability basically above 98%. That's how I judge liquidity.
IV. Evolving from ICT: Why Technical Analysis Must Have Logical Explanations
Victor: Mr. Beggar, a specific question about your trading framework. In recent years, there have been many schools of technical analysis, from traditional false breakouts/breakdowns, V-bottoms, to more recent schools like ICT focusing on liquidity sweeps. It sounds like you've synthesized various schools and can observe liquidity hunts directly with naked charts. How did you form this entire framework, and how did you train to see liquidity just from naked charts?
Mr. Beggar: Initially, I was inspired by ICT (Inner Circle Trader), who introduced concepts like liquidity sweep. Liquidity sweep is essentially the same concept as stop hunt; they should be synonyms.
Long ago when I was learning technical analysis, because there were so many schools, and if you try to verify them scientifically, they can't be fully supported, you need your own verification. Personally, I don't quite agree with traditional pattern analysis, like head and shoulders, rising/falling wedges, flags, triangles, etc. I deeply studied almost all schools before, then gradually filtered, leaving the current system.
My main reason for not fully agreeing with traditional pattern analysis is simple: in financial markets, for anything you want to know if it works, you must be able to explain its logic; you can't just use induction to conclude "this works." Induction could completely be due to survivorship bias from a small sample size. For example, a pattern repeated over the past decade, but you can't find its logic—then you actually dare not use it directly, because "past decade" sounds long, but the sample size might be less than 20. Traditional pattern analysis says "rising wedge is bearish," but no book or online resource explains why this structure is relatively bearish; whereas in ICT's liquidity framework, I saw the reason—the bearish structure caused by so-called trendline liquidity.
As for how to see it with naked charts, it's actually not difficult because it inherently doesn't require indicators; ICT originally taught it without indicators, purely looking at the chart. But reading the chart requires accumulated experience, and the fastest way to accumulate is through review—though review is a very boring process. You might spend 30 minutes daily finding these liquidity areas and verifying if they got swept afterwards. It's quite tiring, but as a full-time trader, it's part of my job.
V. Discipline in Shorting: Clearing at 100K+, Building Low-Leverage Shorts, and "God's Perspective" Confidence
Victor: I remember vividly, around early 2025, when BTC was in the hundred thousand dollars range, you started gradually building short positions with very low leverage, like 1.2x, 1.3x. Later, BTC continued to consolidate at high levels without a smooth decline, yet you held those shorts very firmly. Shorting is counter-intuitive for most people; how did you manage these positions mentally?
Mr. Beggar: Let me pose a question first: Suppose I tell you I'm God and give you the next lottery winning numbers with 100% accuracy, you'd buy without fear because you're absolutely certain. That's god's perspective.
For me, I started the Mr. Beggar account in November 2024, coinciding with a market phase very worth sharing. From late November, December 2024 to January 2025, I posted for about a month straight, saying Bitcoin had topped for this cycle. Afterwards, it proved I was half-right, half-wrong. The right part: I cleared my position at 103,000 because I saw many classic top signals in on-chain analysis, signals almost no one mentioned at the time. I think I was the first; even media loved writing about my articles then, which surprised me a bit, because with the whole internet bullish, few were bearish.
Later, a whole bunch of top signals from my on-chain analysis system triggered, and the price then plummeted to 74,000. Until that point, I still felt the bear market wasn't over, so I didn't enter to buy the dip. Then suddenly, news of a favorable outcome in the tariff war came out, and price rocketed from 74,000 back to my clearing price of 103,000. So I was indeed wrong in that segment; I didn't buy the Bitcoin dip, only bought dips in Taiwanese and US stocks, a pity.
Moving forward to around July last year, those top signals triggered a second time. Historically, whenever those signals triggered, they marked the cycle top. But I had already sold all my Bitcoin, nothing left to sell. So I directly went for coin-denominated short positions. Actually, selling my Bitcoin wasn't simply selling spot; it was hedging with 1x coin-denominated shorts to collect funding rates, which I did for about a year. The Bitcoin I held was used for opening positions but still existed; I used that as collateral to open leveraged shorts.
As for mental adjustment, it boils down to two points. First, I had sufficient confidence in these signals; I had extremely high conviction it would fall, but I didn't know when, so I built the short positions in batches. I opened positions twice in July, and added another when new highs were made in early October, mainly three additions, averaging around 119,500. On the daily chart, the consolidation from mid-July to early November was where I mainly built the position.
Second is risk control. The leverage I used then was very low, only shorting with a bit over 1x leverage. Because anything can happen; even if the probability of Bitcoin suddenly having super bullish news is low, we must ensure we don't get wiped out. You cannot get eliminated from the market because of one trade. Combining these two, I could basically ensure I wouldn't die, and subsequent market movements validated my view.
The only pressure came from Twitter. For those three months, I talked about being bearish every day, while the whole internet was bullish. Many people came to curse me, saying "you're done when it hits 180k." I got used to it; momentarily annoyed, but it passes and doesn't affect my own trading.
VI. Four Deep-Bear Bottom-Fishing Models: Cointime Price, Realized Price, and AVIV
Victor: You've been consistently sharing the four deep-bear bottom-fishing models recently, looking at data like Cointime Price. Could you share your entire on-chain data trading framework with the audience, and how it pairs with technical analysis?
Mr. Beggar: Describing it in the simplest way: it's a dichotomy. For spot, I look at on-chain analysis; for futures or other derivatives, I use technical analysis.
For spot, I mainly look at the long term, where long term isn't one month, three months, half a year, but directly the four-year cycle. Personally, I don't fully subscribe to the four-year cycle theory, but BTC has exhibited it since inception. Bitcoin is special; its bull/bear characteristics are very distinct. Looking at weekly charts, Bitcoin is sharp rallies and sharp declines, but look at Nasdaq index, it's a steady ~45-degree upward slope—a completely different emerging asset. When it rallies, it rallies a lot, but many overlook that when it falls, it falls deeply. For example, if you bought one Bitcoin in April 2021 and held until now, you'd be break-even or even at a loss. So in the Bitcoin market, without some trading plan and simply holding, the psychological grind can be tough.
The greatest strength of on-chain analysis lies in its very high accuracy in assessing tops and bottoms. It might not let me buy at the exact lowest point, but it helps me identify a relatively bottom area. For example, suppose this cycle's bottom is at 50,000; on-chain data might give me 50,000, and it eventually drops to 48,000, 45,000—buying at 50,000 is completely fine; that's so-called "vaguely correct." Exiting the top is the same; this cycle I first exited at 103,000, shorted at 119,500, both relatively okay positions. Buying the dip at 50,000 even if it drops to 45,000 is fully acceptable relative to future potential gains.
Technical analysis leans more towards medium/short term. Especially for an asset like Bitcoin sensitive to liquidity, a framework prioritizing liquidity, supplemented by taker/maker analysis, is a relatively advantageous strategy in the current crypto market. But for an ordinary person, whether student or office worker, as long as not a full-time trader, the barrier for short-term trading is somewhat too high. So on Twitter, I tend to share more long-cycle things, like US fund sentiment curve, Cointime Price, these deep-bear bottom-fishing models, because they are most suitable for ordinary people: you don't need to watch the market daily, even don't need to predict timing, just watch these major level positions.
Here, adding a question a group member asked: Suppose later it drops to the deep-bear model levels but no stop hunt appears, would I buy the dip? My answer is yes. Because on-chain analysis is specifically for dealing with cycle-level tops and bottoms. Once on-chain signals trigger, the weight of technical analysis relatively decreases. At special positions like cycle tops or bottoms, I tend to increase the weight of on-chain analysis; for daily medium/short-term trading, I don't refer much to on-chain analysis, as it inherently isn't designed for such short timeframes—that's also a shortcoming of on-chain analysis itself; it can't be used for short-term trading.
Victor: Among your four deep-bear models, I see one is AVIV, which seems like an optimized version of MVRV, but most people mainly look at MVRV. Could you explain how you use AVIV, Cointime Price, Realized Price, and Long-Term Holder Realized Price these four indicators to determine bottom-fishing positions in bull/bear cycles?
Mr. Beggar: Let's set aside the AVIV heatmap for a moment and talk about the other three first.
First is Realized Price, a very classic on-chain indicator measuring the average cost basis of the entire BTC market holding Bitcoin. Suppose you buy one at 50k, 60k, 70k; the average cost across three purchases is 60k. It calculates this average cost for the entire market. But this indicator is a bit rough; it doesn't consider lost coins, those untouched for ten years, super old-generation coins at all, including them all. Although this doesn't cause obvious errors for final bottom judgment, it has this flaw.
Second is Long-Term Holder Realized Price, stricter, not looking at the entire market but extracting the long-term holder group to calculate their average cost, so the price is a bit lower. In on-chain analysis, long-term holders are often seen as a relatively smart group, because with Bitcoin, as long as you bought early, holding long-term is profitable.
Based on the issues with the first two indicators, Cointime Price emerged. It also calculates the market's average cost of holding BTC from an on-chain perspective but adds a processing step: when each Bitcoin transfers, it looks at how long that coin was held before transfer, using holding time as a weight. Suppose you held for just one day before selling, the weight might be 1; but if you held for ten years before selling, the weight would be 3,650 (ten years ~3,650 days). The benefit of this time-weighted design: those old-generation coins usually inactive aren't included in Cointime Price calculation; what gets included are truly active coins. Another interesting point: Cointime calculation also excludes miners, because miners need to maintain operations; above Cointime Price, they typically sell Bitcoin to cover costs; they usually aren't HODLers. So it measures a cost closer to the real market average; this is my favorite indicator.
The fourth, AVIV heatmap, follows the same concept. Both AVIV and Cointime Price indicators come from a literature jointly published earlier by ARK and Glassnode called Cointime Economics; both concepts were proposed there. AVIV essentially improves upon MVRV, because MVRV also includes those inactive, lost, definitely untouched-for-centuries coins, while AVIV excludes those, yielding a more precise position.
As for the AVIV heatmap, it's a model I wrote myself, incorporating the phenomenon of Bitcoin volatility decreasing over time, using normal distribution. So on the chart, red indicates the cycle is at its tail end—bull market tail; blue indicates the market is at a bottom. It's like a rainbow, cycling back and forth. Usually, blue indicates the cyclical bottom, and currently it's already very, very close to the blue zone. That's the basic logic of these four models.
VII. Accumulation Trend Score and PSIP: Which are Cycle Indicators, Which are Just Swing Indicators
Victor: What platforms or tools do you use to look at this data? There are many on-chain data sources, but you evaluate indicator effectiveness before deciding to include them, even reading literature from ARK and Glassnode collaboration. How did you learn on-chain analysis?
Mr. Beggar: At the very, very beginning, it was simply wanting to make money, entering this crypto market, learning whatever seemed profitable, discarding what proved useless. One day, I discovered Bitcoin had so-called on-chain analysis and started studying. Initially, of course, I saw famous things like MVRV. But diving deeper, I asked myself: Why does this work? Does it have flaws? Under what conditions doesn't it work? Researching the underlying logic, I found MVRV has defects.
I'm not a data platform provider, can't code, don't understand blockchain deeply—so what to do? Could only find existing resources, digging deeper, finding that it wasn't just me discovering MVRV's issues; some teams with resources and expertise designed new indicators. Looking at their reasoning in literature, although not perfect, at least better than MVRV, so I replaced it.
For Asian users, learning on-chain analysis is relatively more difficult, for a simple reason: Chinese resources are almost non-existent, extremely scarce, so must seek foreign resources, at least from well-known indicator creators or famous data sites. I usually look at Glassnode; they do a good job, but I don't usually recommend them to everyone, because you need to pay to see these indicators, and some indicators you can't see even if you pay, because I wrote them myself. For my followers, if you want to see the current status of indicators I've shared, you can directly tell me in comments; I'll fetch the data for you, trying to let everyone see at low or even zero cost. I really don't recommend non-full-time traders spending money on this; just follow my shares, and if you want to see certain data, tell me.
Victor: You recently posted BTC Accumulation Trend Score; the score has been rising. How would you interpret this indicator? And how do we see major players' chip movements from on-chain data?
Mr. Beggar: Accumulation Trend Score was something I shared on June 16th; it's a more comprehensive indicator. Simply put, it indicates whether the on-chain activity is currently net buying or selling—more formally, accumulation or distribution.
When Bitcoin dropped to 59K in early June, this indicator turned to accumulation, but at that moment we couldn't be sure if this meant a reversal. As time passed, this consolidation structure gradually gave us more information: it accumulated more liquidity below, and it broke the 60K previous low and recovered. We must confirm if this is truly a liquidity reversal main structure. Combining this, the consolidation over the past two-plus weeks actually isn't favorable for bottom formation. So combining with Accumulation Trend Score, for me it's not a signal of a true cyclical bottom forming.
This goes back to an important point in on-chain analysis: many indicators can be divided into different tiers. Like Cointime Price: if price falls to it, it's a highly certain cyclical bottom indicator. But indicators like US fund sentiment curve, Accumulation Trend Score—these aren't cyclical indicators; they are more mid-term swing indicators. They could completely change color during a mid-cycle consolidation in a bull market uptrend or a mid-structure in a bear market decline. So seeing some accumulation behavior after dropping to 59K doesn't make me think the cyclical bottom is coming; it just lets me judge "the current rebound is because some buying started," but this buying isn't enough to represent the cyclical bottom arriving.
Adding a point: Currently, one cyclical bottom signal has already appeared. I shared a PSIP bear market bottom signal on June 8th; it's the first cyclical bottom signal lighting up since 2023. But currently only this one lit up, so not enough yet. Also, based on this indicator's past performance, when it first signals, it usually isn't the true bottom; the signal light remains on for a while until the bottom appears. So combining all the above, I think we're just missing one last move breaking below 59K, and then the bottom might arrive, echoing what I said at the start: timing I can't predict, but the distance really isn't far.
Victor: I saw that June 8th post about PSIP. Could you introduce it to the audience?
Mr. Beggar: PSIP stands for Percent Supply in Profit. In Chinese, it's simple: among all circulating Bitcoin, the proportion of coins in profit. For example, if there are 100 Bitcoins in the market, 60 profitable, 40 at a loss, this indicator's value is 60%.
This model is classic; the signal trigger condition is simple: when PSIP falls below 50%, it lights up, indicating over half of circulating Bitcoin is at a loss. From on-chain perspective, we can calculate each coin's cost basis, compare with current price, and know which coins are profitable, which at a loss.
Why is below 50% likely a cyclical bottom signal? The reason stems from supply and demand. Market price is determined by supply and demand. For price to rise,无非 two possibilities: first, demand surges, many people come to buy, like vegetable prices before a typhoon—hoarding pushes price up. But there's a second, less noticed one: supply大幅下降, meaning sellers drastically decrease. If buying pressure is originally low but selling pressure suddenly drops significantly, buying pressure relatively increases, also pushing price up.
PSIP below 50% refers to the second. This involves behavioral finance: when you're in profit, seeing 5,000U unrealized gain, you really want to close and realize gains quickly, afraid it might disappear in an hour. But when you're at a loss, mentality reverses: you think "hold a bit longer, it might recover," your risk appetite actually increases—an irrational but human behavior. So when most coins are at a loss, people are reluctant to sell, directly leading to significantly reduced selling pressure in the Bitcoin market. Therefore, PSIP below 50% can be a cyclical bottom signal.
Currently, this signal only lit up briefly; in early June dropping to 59,000, PSIP value lowest reached about 47.8%. But since it just lit up, plus other deep-bear models not yet reached, I can't definitively say the bottom is in. If you're someone completely懒得思考, the current price might be a decent position (not investment advice). But if you want to optimize operations, being slightly patient and waiting a bit longer might be a better choice; at least I'm willing to choose that.
VIII. US vs. Asia Fund Sentiment Curve: Risk Signals of Smart Money Sneaking Out
Victor: Just discussed some more medium/short-term swing indicators; want to specifically ask about US vs. Asian funds. Since the start of this cycle in 2023, a large part of BTC's pricing power moved to Wall Street; ETF trading volume already exceeds exchanges, CME futures also have significant pricing power. You posted before saying Asian funds are more like dumb money, US funds more like smart money. Over the past year or two, from on-chain data, what different action signals can we see between US and Asian funds, and how can we use them for swing profits?
Mr. Beggar: The connection between pricing power and US fund sentiment curve isn't extremely large, but there is some.
First, application of the sentiment curve. Everyone can see: it's Asian session now, Bitcoin hardly moves; but when US stock market opens, US working hours, volatility and trading volume both amplify, indicating the main trading capital is mostly during US working hours. So if we see price rising and US fund sentiment curve also rising synchronously, we can reasonably say post-facto: clearly Americans are buying up.
But if we see an anomaly: Bitcoin price rising, yet US fund sentiment curve falling instead—this is strange. Reasoning from calculation principle, this means after a prior rise, it's actually Asians buying during Asian session, Americans selling during US session, resulting in price sideways or slow rise, but US fund sentiment curve falling. In my trading system, this is a very noteworthy risk signal, indicating they are sneaking out, retreating, while Asian funds are taking over.
I've shared this concept twice. First time around November 2025: very classic then—Asia sentiment curve直线上升, US curve直线下降, price sideways. The afternoon I posted, it directly暴跌, from around 110k down to 80k+. Second time was this May: Bitcoin冲到 81k, 82k附近, rising all the way, suddenly one day US fund sentiment directly暴跌, price hadn't moved yet, I posted提醒大家注意风险, and afterwards it indeed fell all the way.
So we can use US fund attitude to辅助风险判断. Suppose you were originally long and不懂这项分析, but you see this risk, you can be alert, put some insurance on your longs, do some hedging or减仓, or use derivatives to hedge. Regardless, this thing at least can help us提示风险; that's its greatest utility.
IX. Event-Driven Trading: Long-Short Arbitrage实战 from BTC, ETH to SOL
Mr. Z: Your entire trading framework is based on on-chain info and technical analysis. Do you also incorporate news-driven, capital-driven judgments? For example, news like ETF launches, would you choose to be more bullish? Or do you think the Bitcoin market is already mature and efficient, shouldn't use news to judge?
Mr. Beggar: Here's a case to share. Since starting Mr. Beggar, my精力比较分散, trading not as diligent as before. But I used to love doing a type of trade called event-driven trading.
Given the crypto market's current state, although not comparable to US stocks, efficiency has reached a mature stage. So trying to capture market inefficiencies via information to捞 Alpha is somewhat difficult for ordinary散户, unless you do高频, but散户 don't have the equipment, team, resources. However, event-driven trading is still doable.
Example, go back to the day Bitcoin spot ETF got approved. Before approval, Bitcoin already rose一波, the market提前 price in this news. On approval day, it didn't directly surge, but there was a very notable signal: Ethereum surged massively. With Bitcoin not moving much, Ethereum/Bitcoin汇率直线上升, I think it rose about 10%-20%, a very large candle. Why? Because if Bitcoin got ETF approval, it means crypto assets can pass ETFs, then who's next? Only one possibility: Ethereum, absolutely no second possibility. So many smart money directly冲进去了 then—that's market efficiency. To use such information for event-driven trading, first way: you're超聪明, before Bitcoin approval, anticipate two things: one, Bitcoin ETF will pass; two, Ethereum will surge, so you buy Ethereum提前.
The second is a trade I did in 2024: Ethereum ETF. Before its approval, progress was very跌宕起伏; market generally thought it wouldn't pass, pricing only about 20%-25% probability. Until某一天 in May 2024, around May 23rd, Bloomberg's senior ETF analyst Eric posted around 3 AM, saying they now认为通过机率超高. Ethereum directly暴涨,单日涨了 20%, shorts灰飞烟灭. I remember vividly, went to toilet回来 suddenly price seemed显示错误, how suddenly up so much, but it was real, Ethereum up to 4,000. Side note,事后看 that was actually Ethereum's peak for that phase; it later fell to 2,000.
Mr. Z: Back then when Eric suddenly said probability increased, was there any special reason?
Mr. Beggar: We don't know the reason, only know this person is very authoritative in ETF领域. Like if I say market will cut rates, nobody cares; but if Powell says will cut rates, everyone listens. Eric is such authority in ETF领域; he must have gotten some消息, we don't know where from, but he released this info to market, and market马上 price in.
But here still no room for event-driven trading yet. What I thought that day: if Ethereum passes, who surges next? Replicate Bitcoin's pattern. I did some功课, found two best candidates, first SOL, second XRP, finally筛选出 SOL. How to execute this trade? Simplest method: short Ethereum, long Solana—that's the so-called long-short strategy, holding the spread between the two coins. Prerequisite: I need to confirm Ethereum's approval probability is high.
Here share a less intuitive logic: most散户 seeing a company release利好, first reaction "it'll rise, I'll buy it," but this is most intuitive and least profitable, because everyone will buy. You can also think another direction: will its competitors suffer, fall? So rather than buying it, I'd倾向去做空它的竞争对手. Same logic, Ethereum ETF approval probability大幅提升, then I think who's next, replicate Bitcoin pattern,筛选出 SOL. Later, SOL/Ethereum汇率 indeed saw a quite large rise.
But there was some luck成分 then, because刚好碰上链上Meme币 (金狗、土狗) most glorious era; everyone bought SOL to trade those链上币, so SOL got additional连带上涨. I did this trade, ate expected profit, later那段算是市场赠送的. This is a classic event-driven trading case; everyone can think in this direction about things others might not think of,才有机会在 efficient market get some Alpha.
X. Will MicroStrategy Blow Up? Blow-Up Isn't the Cause of Bear Bottom
Mr. Z: Now we have MicroStrategy, these ETFs, DAT (Digital Asset Treasury companies); Bitcoin's biggest buyers now are actually buyers like MicroStrategy. Recently we saw some FUD around its fixed-income product STRC; although based on its reserves should be fine, market panics. From your perspective, before下一波牛市启动 this cycle, is MicroStrategy in有点困境? Everyone似乎很想狙击 it, make it blow up, then market can迎来一波上涨?
Mr. Beggar: This question many people care about; I've been asked many times. First, my personal view.
One or two years ago, when it hadn't issued STRC yet, I specifically looked at its debt structure. From debt structure perspective, their blow-up probability is very low. Why do I think they're smart? Their debt maturities are almost all after 2028, so during this period, as long as Bitcoin doesn't have super extreme conditions—like阴跌 all the way to 2028 without recovery—they definitely won't have problems. The recent STRC I haven't studied deeply, only saw it脱锚了, currently好像跌破 83块, but from cash reserve角度 I haven't researched deeply,不敢讲太多. But with a trader's直觉, I think their blow-up probability is really low.
They might sell Bitcoin; previous sales might have been market sentiment testing or expectation management; selling causing market panic also possible. But for this company, this Bitcoin empire, to entirely崩溃, then triggering a bull market—I think somewhat不切实际, because I can't imagine the direct correlation between the two. Why must they die for Bitcoin to迎来大涨? They've been buying for five-six years; last bull market they didn't die, though amounts bought then incomparable to now. Without them dying, why can that阻碍牛市的出现? This is worth questioning.
More fundamentally: they are not the hands主导周期. At least in current Bitcoin market, cycles are determined by the market; no single entity庄家 can control Bitcoin. Short-term moves might be manipulated,无可厚非, but for long-term entire cycle级别, is there really an entity making Bitcoin go from 10k to 100k? I think不太可能; that's absolutely consensus of market capital. Since they aren't the hands操纵整个比特币市场, have no absolute control over Bitcoin, then their death or not likely has no correlation with bottom appearing.
Some might say past bear market bottoms always had institutions blow up. But I think that's not because blow-ups cause bottoms; rather because market already very糟糕, capital left, those who should leave left, those unwilling forced out because market unattractive. For example,某些生态 TVL下降,某些协议运营不下去, or just want to跑路—these institutions/protocols blowing up is actually caused by bad market, not blow-ups causing bad market then bottom. Must理清楚 this logic: their blow-up or not has no direct correlation with market bottoming. Also, with trader's直觉, they play财务手段 so精明, putting themselves in那种非常夸张的险境, probability still偏低的.
XI. Different Plays for Altcoins: Smaller Market Cap, Higher Possibility of Manipulation
Victor: You've mainly traded BTC, sometimes ETH, SOL these majors, also invest in US stock indices. For coins beyond BTC, like ETH, SOL, how does operating style differ from BTC? Can the on-chain analysis, technical analysis, stop hunt framework you use on BTC be applied to other major coins?
Mr. Beggar: Can split into two parts. First, each asset, each coin's惯性 definitely differs somewhat. Bitcoin is this market's老大, so on-chain analysis directly targets it—that's absolute.
If you're "investing" not "trading," meaning long-term holding,看好它的价值, then simplest way: watch when BTC bottoms, then decide to布局 some altcoin spot, whether Ethereum, SOL, BNB.
But if "trading," applying the liquidity framework to altcoins requires considering a point: because altcoin market caps are偏小, even major altcoins have quite large caps but relative to Bitcoin are small. Smaller market cap means higher possibility of price manipulation by whales, smart money, institutions inside. Not conspiracy,实打实的事实. Look at small cap币圈 coins; most extreme example, like old TRB from 9块拉 to 600+, clearly有人操纵, or like LPT, 2024's old币 PEOPLE, ZRX—these are明显的 market manipulation coins, with庄家 inside.
Does Ethereum have庄家? I believe not, given its cap足够大. But its cap relative Bitcoin still smaller, so when applying the original Bitcoin liquidity framework to trade altcoins for medium/short term, must lower the weight a bit, because need to一并考虑 higher probability of this coin being manipulated. The庄家 you perceive and actual庄家 behavior might differ; e.g., this庄家 just doesn't like playing liquidity hunts—then you can't help it, because price ultimately他说了算. Using stop hunt, liquidity analysis weight must被迫下降, can't apply same weight to Bitcoin and these altcoins, otherwise somewhat硬套,不太合适.
XII. Asset Allocation and Strike Zone: Don't Buy Because "It's Going Up"
Victor: How would you currently allocate across different assets? For BTC, we see from on-chain data it's gradually entering buyable bottom area, but另一边股市今年一直疯涨, especially AI and semiconductors; just investing in QQQ (Nasdaq 100 ETF) this year has great gains. How would you allocate between BTC, US stock indices, and个股? If starting BTC dollar-cost averaging now, would opportunity cost损失 from missing股市涨这么好,少赚 some market Beta? At this time point, how to布局?
Mr. Beggar: Split this question into three parts.
First part, my own asset allocation: style很简单. Deduct living expenses, half in crypto, half in台股 & US stocks, mainly US stocks. This is just personal preference, no absolute right/wrong. Older followers might know I publicly抄底台美股 in April 2025. In stock market, I mainly do index investing plus一点点个股; I bought some TSMC but now not looking at it, just letting it sit until next major crisis appears, then I might避险 or清仓, this action frequency very low, maybe five or even ten years once, so this part忽略, it's long-term投资. The other half in crypto is my usual cyclical trading, medium/short-term swing trading.
Second part, now半导体, AI so火热, daily打开就是涨, pullbacks only一点点 then继续喷,散户 how应对这种 "只涨不跌" situation? Jump in headfirst or wait for崩盘再买? No absolute answer, but关键 point: you shouldn't buy because it's rising. It rose, you see it rose so want to buy—this is not a成立的理由 to buy. Your only reason to buy should be one: you expect it will rise afterwards; you look at future, not now or past. How do you know if it will rise未来? Yes, this is hardest part of trading; need sufficient familiarity, strong understanding, lots of research; can't just follow buy because it keeps rising. Have you thought: if you buy and it rises 10%, you're happy, but later崩盘 20% what do you do, add or止损离场? These can't start思考 after buying; must预想到 before buying.
Third part is棒球理论, strike zone concept. When you unfamiliar with something, yet want to operate in unfamiliar领域, then you are just this market's liquidity. Because you根本不知道 when to take profit when it rises, nor whether to add or逃跑 if falls after you buy. If you want to speculate medium/short term, that's entering zero-sum博弈; whose money do you want to赚? Who in this market would let you, completely没研究过市场的人,赚走他们的钱? Clearly不合理.
So I often emphasize strike zone: must do parts you're familiar with. I'm not extremely了解 semiconductor, AI, so my stock strategy一直一样: index investing,额外配置大概 10%-20%个股 I think have Alpha, but mostly index investing, because I know just holding, letting time复利, I'll get deserved Beta, at least won't miss this market's Beta. And crypto is my strike zone; the bottoms, tops I perceive, these are operations I'm more擅长, also very confident in. So if you ask if I'd move crypto's 50%资金 to US stocks, basically不可能, because比例 set from start.
One thing I'm certain: on the day Bitcoin truly hits bottom未来, market绝对是一片看衰, consensus认为加密完蛋了, Bitcoin完蛋了, and that time I'd反而更放心出手. Anyone滑 Twitter会发现, Bitcoin drops 3% in a day, all shorts come out, everyone喊完蛋了, even 3%,5% can引起这么大的轩然大波. Look前段时间 from 82k,83k跌到 59k, sentiment from "牛回了,牛熊分界线突破了,开启新牛市"瞬间变成 "Bitcoin要跌到 3万", this情绪转变非常恐怖. So I'm certain, at real抄底时刻,反而根本没人 care, people more倾向去冲 SpaceX, OpenAI, Anthropic or semiconductor AI themes; that time反而 my best时机 to默默布局 Bitcoin,当然实际上结合 deep-bear model data, this data gives me greatest抄底底气.
So small总结 for everyone: if you really want to杀进 AI & semiconductor to赚这个钱, first思考几件事. First, if after buying price rises, do you sell, at what level? If you sell and it continues rising 20%,30%, will you心里不舒服? Second, if after buying immediately下跌, do you止损, or add at certain下跌, add more at further下跌, or immediately割肉离场? No correct answers; depends on your risk tolerance, funding source (using贷款绝对压力超大,用闲钱压力相对小), and for these companies you researched,凭什么 you think buying now can profit? What event or macro condition triggers expected涨幅? If market doesn't follow预期, how应对?
These opinions might not directly help you赚钱, but I'm certain they can help you not亏到不该亏的钱. Even if you少赚一些, that money originally not yours to赚; must赚到自己认知之内的财富. Don't投资 because一时赌气 or看大家都在买就冲进去. This is some opinion I can share.
