Tiger Research: How Is This Crypto Winter Different?

marsbitPublicado a 2026-02-04Actualizado a 2026-02-04

Resumen

Tiger Research analyzes the distinct nature of the current crypto market downturn, arguing it differs fundamentally from past "crypto winters." Previous cycles were triggered by internal industry crises—the Mt. Gox hack, ICO scams, and the FTX collapse—which shattered trust and drove talent away. In contrast, the recent market movement is driven by external factors: the approval of Bitcoin ETFs fueled the bull run, while tariff policies and interest rate shifts caused the decline. Post-regulation, the market has fragmented into three layers: a compliant zone (e.g., tokenized RWA, regulated exchanges), a non-compliant zone (speculative, experimental apps), and shared infrastructure (e.g., stablecoins, oracles). Capital no longer flows between these layers as before; ETF inflows remain largely confined to Bitcoin within the compliant zone and do not trickle down to altcoins. For the next bull market to emerge, two conditions are necessary: a new killer application must originate from the non-compliant zone (similar to how DeFi summer began), and the macro environment must become supportive (e.g., with lower interest rates). The era of a unified "crypto season" where all assets rally together is likely over due to this market segmentation.

Author: Ryan Yoon

Compiled by: Deep Tide TechFlow

Deep Tide Introduction: As the market enters a downward cycle, skepticism towards the crypto market is growing. Tiger Research believes this time is different from the past: previous winters were triggered by internal issues (Mt. Gox hack, ICO scams, FTX collapse), while this cycle's rise and fall are both driven by external factors (ETF approval brought the bull market, tariff policies and interest rates caused the decline).

Post-regulation, the market has split into three layers: the compliant zone, the non-compliant zone, and shared infrastructure. Capital no longer flows via 'trickle-down' effects as it did before. ETF capital stays with Bitcoin and does not flow into altcoins.

The next bull run requires two conditions: a killer app must emerge from the non-compliant zone + a supportive macro environment.

Full text below:

As the market enters a downward cycle, skepticism towards the crypto market is growing. The question now is, have we entered a crypto winter?

Core View

Crypto winters follow a sequence: Major event → Collapse of trust → Talent drain
Past winters were caused by internal problems; the current rise and fall are driven by external factors; it is neither winter nor spring
Post-regulation, the market has split into three layers: Compliant zone, Non-compliant zone, Shared infrastructure; The trickle-down effect has disappeared
ETF capital stays with Bitcoin; it does not flow out of the compliant zone
The next bull run requires a killer use case + a supportive macro environment

1. How did the previous crypto winters unfold?

The first winter occurred in 2014. Mt. Gox was the exchange handling 70% of global Bitcoin trading volume at the time. Approximately 850,000 BTC disappeared in a hack, causing a collapse in market trust. New exchanges with internal controls and audit functions emerged, and trust began to recover. Ethereum also entered the world through ICOs, opening up new possibilities for vision and fundraising methods.

This ICO wave became the catalyst for the next bull market. When anyone could issue a token and raise funds, the 2017 boom was ignited. Projects raising billions with just a whitepaper flooded in, but most had no substance.

In 2018, regulatory measures poured out from South Korea, China, and the US, the bubble burst, and the second winter arrived. This winter did not end until 2020. Post-COVID, liquidity poured in, and DeFi protocols like Uniswap, Compound, and Aave gained attention, bringing capital back.

The third winter was the most severe. When Terra-Luna collapsed in 2022, Celsius, Three Arrows Capital, and FTX collapsed in turn. This wasn't just a simple price drop; the very structure of the industry was shaken. In January 2024, the US SEC approved the spot Bitcoin ETF, followed by the Bitcoin halving and Trump's pro-crypto policies, and capital began to flow in again.

2. The Crypto Winter Pattern: Major Event → Collapse of Trust → Talent Drain

All three winters followed the same sequence. A major event occurs, trust collapses, talent leaves.

It always starts with a major event. The Mt. Gox hack, ICO regulation, and the FTX bankruptcy following the Terra-Luna collapse. The scale and form of each event were different, but the result was the same. The entire market was thrown into shock.

Shock quickly spread into a collapse of trust. Those who had been discussing what to build next began to question whether cryptocurrency was truly meaningful technology. The collaborative atmosphere among builders disappeared, and they began to blame each other for who was responsible.

Doubt led to a talent drain. The builders who had been creating new momentum in blockchain fell into doubt. In 2014, they moved to fintech and big tech companies. In 2018, they moved to institutions and AI. They went to places that seemed more certain.

3. Is the current situation a crypto winter?

The pattern of past crypto winters is visible today.

Major Event:
Trump's tariff policies caused market turbulence
Shift in Federal Reserve interest rate policy
Overall crypto market decline
Collapse of Trust: Skepticism is spreading within the industry. The focus has shifted from what to build next to mutual blame.
Pressure of Talent Drain: The AI industry is growing rapidly. It promises faster exits and greater wealth than crypto.

However, it's hard to call this a crypto winter. Past winters erupted from within the industry. Mt. Gox was hacked, most ICO projects were exposed as scams, FTX collapsed. The industry itself lost trust.

Now it's different.

ETF approval started the bull market, tariff policies and interest rates drove the decline. External factors lifted the market, external factors also pushed it down.

Builders are not leaving either.

RWA, perpDEX (perpetual decentralized exchanges), prediction markets, InfoFi, privacy. New narratives keep emerging, they are still being created. They haven't pulled the entire market like DeFi did, but they haven't disappeared either. The industry hasn't collapsed; the external environment has changed.

We didn't create spring, so there is no winter.

4. Changes in Market Structure Post-Regulation

Behind this is a major shift in market structure post-regulation. The market has split into three layers: 1) The Compliant Zone, 2) The Non-Compliant Zone, and 3) Shared Infrastructure.

The Compliant Zone includes RWA tokenization, exchanges, institutional custody, prediction markets, and compliance-based DeFi. They undergo audits, make disclosures, and have legal protection. Growth is slow, but the capital scale is large and stable.

However, once in the compliant zone, it's hard to expect explosive returns like in the past. Volatility is lower, and potential upside is limited. But downside risk is also limited.

On the other hand, the Non-Compliant Zone will become more speculative in the future. The barrier to entry is low, and speed is fast. Scenarios of 100x in one day and -90% the next will happen more frequently.

However, this space is not meaningless. Industries born in the non-compliant zone are creative, and once validated, they move into the compliant zone. DeFi did this, prediction markets are doing it now. It acts as an experimental field. But the non-compliant zone itself will become increasingly separated from compliant zone businesses.

Shared Infrastructure includes stablecoins and oracles. They are used in both the compliant and non-compliant zones. The same USDC is used for institutional RWA payments and for Pump.fun trading. Oracles provide data for tokenized treasury validation and for anonymous DEX liquidations.

In other words, as the market splits, capital flows have also changed.

In the past, when Bitcoin rose, altcoins rose too through a trickle-down effect. Now it's different. Institutional capital entering through ETFs stays with Bitcoin, full stop. Compliant zone capital does not flow into the non-compliant zone. Liquidity only stays where value has been proven. And even Bitcoin has not yet proven its value as a safe-haven asset relative to risk assets.

5. Conditions for the Next Bull Run

Regulation is being sorted out. Builders are still building. So two things remain.

First, a new killer use case must emerge from the non-compliant zone. Something that creates value that didn't exist before, like DeFi Summer in 2020. AI agents, InfoFi, and on-chain social are candidates, but they haven't reached the scale to drive the entire market yet. The process where experiments in the non-compliant zone are validated and move into the compliant zone must be recreated. DeFi did this, prediction markets are doing it now.

Second, the macroeconomic environment. Even if regulation is sorted out, builders are building, and infrastructure is accumulating, if the macroeconomic environment is not supportive, the upside is limited. The 2020 DeFi Summer erupted when liquidity was released post-COVID. The post-ETF approval rise in 2024 also coincided with expectations of rate cuts. No matter how the crypto industry performs, it cannot control interest rates and liquidity. For what the industry builds to gain traction, the macroeconomic environment must turn.

A 'crypto season' where everything rises together like in the past is unlikely to reappear. Because the market has split. The compliant zone grows steadily, the non-compliant zone experiences big rises and falls.

The next bull run will come. But it won't come for everyone.

Preguntas relacionadas

QWhat is the main difference between the current crypto market downturn and previous crypto winters according to Tiger Research?

AThe current downturn is driven by external factors (tariff policies and interest rates), while previous crypto winters were caused by internal industry issues like the Mt. Gox hack, ICO scams, and the FTX collapse.

QHow has the market structure changed post-regulation as described in the article?

AThe market has split into three layers: the compliant zone (regulated entities), the non-compliant zone (speculative and experimental projects), and shared infrastructure (used by both, like stablecoins and oracles).

QWhy does ETF capital no longer flow into altcoins as it did in the past?

AETF capital remains within the compliant zone and stays primarily in Bitcoin, as institutional investors focus on proven value rather than speculative altcoins, breaking the previous 'trickle-down' effect.

QWhat two conditions are necessary for the next crypto bull run according to the article?

AA killer application must emerge from the non-compliant zone (similar to DeFi Summer in 2020), and the macroeconomic environment must become supportive (e.g., lower interest rates and increased liquidity).

QWhat pattern did all three previous crypto winters follow?

AThey followed a sequence: a major event (e.g., Mt. Gox hack, ICO regulatory crackdown, Terra-Luna collapse) leading to a loss of trust, which then caused talent to leave the industry for more stable sectors.

Lecturas Relacionadas

"Unlimited Money Printing" Bug Lurked for Four Years, Privacy Coin ZEC Plummets 50% in One Day

A critical "unlimited, undetectable counterfeit" vulnerability existed for nearly four years in the Orchard privacy pool of Zcash (ZEC), a privacy-focused cryptocurrency. The bug, which could theoretically allow attackers to create unlimited fake ZEC, was disclosed by founder Zooko Wilcox on June 5th. While officially patched and deemed low-probability for exploitation, the news triggered a market panic. ZEC's price plummeted over 50% in a single day. The core crisis stems from the inability to prove whether any counterfeit ZEC was created during the vulnerability's active period, as Orchard's design inherently hides transaction details. This casts severe doubt on ZEC's total supply integrity. The sell-off accelerated after prominent investor and ZEC narrative supporter Arthur Hayes announced he had sold his entire position, citing the inability to cryptographically prove the impossibility of extra minting. Community trust eroded further upon learning the bug was discovered with AI-assisted auditing, raising questions about Zcash's development and security review processes. The incident has evolved from a price correction into a fundamental crisis of confidence regarding the network's core security promises.

Odaily星球日报Hace 9 min(s)

"Unlimited Money Printing" Bug Lurked for Four Years, Privacy Coin ZEC Plummets 50% in One Day

Odaily星球日报Hace 9 min(s)

Bitcoin's 'Rally Ends,' Officially Entering the Later Stage of a Bear Market?

Bitcoin prices declined 13% this week, reversing the recent rebound and signaling a likely transition into the later stages of a bear market. Key on-chain metrics deteriorated, with the short-term holder cost basis falling below the Realized Price—a pattern last seen in early 2022, characteristic of bear market maturity. The rally to ~$82k proved to be a bear market bounce, as evidenced by the 90-day realized profit/loss ratio failing to sustain above the bullish threshold of 2. Daily realized losses surged to $1.35B, including significant selling from long-term holders who accumulated near cycle tops, indicating ongoing supply redistribution. Price was rejected almost precisely at the aggregate US spot ETF cost basis of ~$83k, turning that level into resistance and leaving the average ETF investor underwater again. Spot market selling pressure intensified, with the 7-day volume delta turning significantly negative to its weakest level since February. While a major long liquidation event cleared over $400M in leverage, spot demand has not yet stepped in to absorb the resulting supply. Options markets continue pricing in higher future volatility (elevated volatility risk premium) and maintain a skew toward put options, reflecting persistent demand for downside protection, though not yet panic. Overall, market structure remains fragile. Sustained recovery likely requires a reclaim of the ETF cost basis, a shift back to positive spot demand, and a slowdown in realized loss-taking. Until then, the market risks further downside or extended consolidation within the broader bear trend.

Foresight NewsHace 38 min(s)

Bitcoin's 'Rally Ends,' Officially Entering the Later Stage of a Bear Market?

Foresight NewsHace 38 min(s)

How Risky is the "Death Spiral" of MSTR and STRC?

Summary: This article explores the perceived "death spiral" risk between MicroStrategy (MSTR), its Bitcoin holdings, and its perpetual preferred stock (STRC), drawing comparisons to the LUNA-UST collapse. While both systems feature price anchors, high yields for holders, and potential feedback loops, their core mechanisms differ fundamentally. The MSTR-STRC structure relies on continuous financing to sustain its high dividend payouts, primarily through stock ATM offerings. A negative feedback cycle could occur: falling MSTR stock price makes raising equity capital harder, increasing pressure to sell Bitcoin, which undermines STRC confidence and further depresses MSTR. However, unlike LUNA-UST's automated, direct linkage, the MSTR-STRC loop is weaker and has brakes: STRC dividends can be deferred or rates lowered, and STRC holders have a $100/share liquidation preference in bankruptcy, providing a price floor. The company's sustainability hinges on its ability to continue financing. Its current ~$900 million USD reserves cover only about 6.3 months of its ~$1.71 billion annual interest/dividend burden. The next six months are critical, aligning with both the potential bottom in Bitcoin's four-year cycle and the depletion timeline of its reserves. While a LUNA-style catastrophic collapse is deemed highly unlikely due to structural differences, the key question is whether MicroStrategy can navigate this period through healthy deleveraging to restart its capital engine.

Foresight NewsHace 56 min(s)

How Risky is the "Death Spiral" of MSTR and STRC?

Foresight NewsHace 56 min(s)

How Much Debt Does Strategy Really Have? Is There a Risk of Implosion?

MicroStrategy's Debt Risk: A Turning Point in the "Never Sell" Strategy As of June 3, 2026, MicroStrategy holds 843,706 bitcoins (valued at ~$53.1B) but faces significant financial obligations. Its capital structure includes $6.75B in convertible notes and $15.48B in perpetual preferred stock (led by the $8.5B STRC series), creating an annual payout burden of ~$1.71B. With software revenue at only ~$500M, interest and dividend obligations far exceed operating income. A critical shift occurred in late May 2026 when the company sold 32 bitcoins for ~$2.5M to cover dividends, breaking CEO Michael Saylor's long-standing "never sell" pledge. This symbolic move triggered a sharp decline in both Bitcoin's price and MSTR stock, reflecting market fears about cash flow sustainability. The core of the strain is the STRC perpetual preferred stock, designed as a "permanent loan" with no maturity date but requiring high monthly dividends (currently 11.5%). Its business model relies on a three-part cycle: issuing new STRC shares, using proceeds to buy more Bitcoin and fund a USD reserve, and using that reserve to pay dividends. This cycle depends on continuous investor demand for STRC and Bitcoin's price appreciation. Analysis shows Bitcoin needs to appreciate at least 2.3% annually to cover the $1.71B in yearly obligations at current holdings. With Bitcoin price down ~22% from March 2026 highs, this pressure has intensified. The company's $900M USD reserve can only cover about 7 months of payments if STRC issuance stalls. Key risks are not immediate bankruptcy or forced Bitcoin liquidation (as BTC is not collateral), but rather: 1) The erosion of MSTR's premium to its Bitcoin holdings (mNAV), which would cripple its ability to raise cheap capital; 2) A vicious cycle where stagnant Bitcoin prices reduce STRC demand, draining the USD reserve and forcing BTC sales, further depressing prices. The period from February 2027 to September 2028 is a crucial test, with over $5.9B in convertible notes facing put options or maturity. In essence, MicroStrategy has evolved from a simple Bitcoin holder into a complex financial entity acting like a "private Bitcoin bank," leveraging its BTC holdings to create layered financial products. Its survival depends on maintaining Bitcoin's price trend, its stock premium, and market appetite for its preferred shares. The recent token sale marks not a betrayal of its Bitcoin thesis, but an admission that the leveraged strategy must eventually be paid for.

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

How Much Debt Does Strategy Really Have? Is There a Risk of Implosion?

marsbitHace 1 hora(s)

Bitcoin Falls Sharply Behind Micron Technology As Investors Favor Semiconductor Exposure

Bitcoin is struggling to break the $63,000 level, having dropped sharply from its all-time high. It is now significantly underperforming compared to semiconductor stocks, particularly Micron Technology. Market analysis by Joao Wedson reveals Bitcoin has fallen over 95% against Micron, signaling a major investor rotation towards AI and semiconductor infrastructure assets. While this divergence could profoundly impact crypto markets, Wedson suggests cryptocurrency may eventually become a contrarian play. Meanwhile, Bitcoin's price decline is linked to large stakeholders ("whales") selling over 24,600 BTC last week, indicating market caution. Conversely, small-scale traders increased their holdings, potentially signaling a future buy opportunity.

bitcoinistHace 1 hora(s)

Bitcoin Falls Sharply Behind Micron Technology As Investors Favor Semiconductor Exposure

bitcoinistHace 1 hora(s)

Trading

Spot

Futuros