LUNA price prediction – Is recovery in sight now after 20% slide from Monday’s high?

ambcryptoPublished on 2025-12-17Last updated on 2025-12-17

Abstract

LUNA's price dropped 20.1% from Monday’s high, reaching $0.127, and has since traded between $0.127 and $0.135. Despite a recent bullish market structure break above $0.168 and increased trading volume, the token failed to hold the $0.15–$0.16 demand zone, invalidating earlier bullish expectations. The 4-hour chart shows bearish pressure, with LUNA barely holding the 78.6% Fibonacci level at $0.13. While higher timeframes suggest a potential recovery toward $0.2–$0.24, Bitcoin’s ongoing weakness and LUNA’s history of failed bullish breakouts make further downside more likely. Traders are advised to consider short positions if LUNA fails to reclaim $0.155.

Terra [LUNA] saw a 20.1% price drop that began on Monday and stopped in the early hours of Tuesday, at $0.127. Since then, the price has bounced between $0.127 and $0.135, and was at $0.13 at the time of writing.

In a recent report, AMBCrypto had written that LUNA offered a good buying opportunity due to its defense of the $0.15-$0.16 demand zone the previous week. However, the bullish expectations have been proven wrong since after the token’s latest downturn.

Which way will LUNA go next?

The 3-day chart revealed a bullish structure for LUNA. The long-term trend has been bearish since May 2022. In between, there have been extended periods during which LUNA’s price action broke the market structure bullishly.

So far, it has been unable to keep any such breakout going for a significant period of time. Maybe, it will never recover to the $80 or $100-levels it was before the Terra crash. However, that doesn’t matter to traders, who can make profits from short-term trends.

The move past the $0.168 local high from mid-September meant that LUNA’s market structure was bullish. This could set up a rally towards some of the preceding swing highs. The OBV’s dramatic upward push, and the volume bars in December underlined increased trading volume behind the price surge.

The 4-hour chart revealed that LUNA bulls were barely holding on to the 78.6% Fibonacci retracement level at $0.13. Additionally, the lower timeframe demand zone at $0.15-$0.18 was also ceded to the bears following Monday’s volatility.

Both these developments highlighted a hike in bearish pressure in the short term. The H4 structure was bearish as well.

Which path is LUNA less likely to take?

Given the structure on the 1-day and 3-day timeframes, holding on to a bullish bias makes sense. LUNA only needs to recover past key support levels, such as $0.155, to recover the gains it made a week ago.

At the same time, we should remember that Bitcoin’s [BTC] trend has been bearish too. A breakout past $94k is needed to give it a bullish tinge. Until this happens, the bullish LUNA scenario of a recovery towards $0.2 and $0.24 remains the less likely route.

Traders’ call to action- Is it time to turn bearish on LUNA?

In short, yes. Many times in recent months, LUNA has made a bullish structure break on the 1-day and 3-day timeframes, but was unable to hold on to them. The most recent bullish shift came on the back of much higher trading volume, which could persuade traders to expect a bullish recovery.

Traders looking to go short can wait a few more days to see whether the token can defend $0.13 and reclaim the $0.155 former support or not.

Final Thoughts

  • The previous bullish expectations for LUNA were invalidated when the token failed to defend the $0.155 short-term demand zone.
  • Bitcoin’s prevailing weakness and the tendency for Terra token bulls to fail to establish an uptrend meant that more LUNA drawdown was likely.

Disclaimer: The information presented does not constitute financial, investment, trading, or other types of advice and is solely the writer’s opinion

Related Reads

Breaking: OpenAI Undergoes Major Reorganization, President Brockman Assumes Command

OpenAI has announced a major internal reorganization just months before its anticipated IPO. The company is merging its three flagship product lines—ChatGPT, Codex, and the API platform—into a single, unified product organization. The most significant leadership change involves co-founder and President Greg Brockman moving from a background technical role to take full, permanent control over all product strategy. This follows the indefinite medical leave of AGI Deployment CEO Fidji Simo. Additionally, ChatGPT's longtime lead, Nick Turley, has been reassigned to enterprise products, with former Instagram executive Ashley Alexander taking over consumer offerings. The consolidation, internally framed as a strategic move towards an "Agentic Future," aims to break down internal silos and create a cohesive "Super App." This planned desktop application would integrate ChatGPT's conversational abilities, Codex's coding power, and a rumored internal web browser named "Atlas" to autonomously perform complex user tasks. The reorganization occurs amid significant internal and external pressures. OpenAI has recently seen a wave of high-profile departures, including Sora co-lead Bill Peebles and other senior technical leaders, leading to concerns about a thinning executive bench. Externally, rival Anthropic recently secured funding at a staggering $900 billion valuation, surpassing OpenAI's own. Google's upcoming I/O developer conference also poses a competitive threat. Analysts suggest the dramatic restructure is a pre-IPO move to present a clearer, more focused narrative to Wall Street—streamlining operations and demonstrating decisive leadership under Brockman to counter internal turbulence and intense market competition.

marsbit6m ago

Breaking: OpenAI Undergoes Major Reorganization, President Brockman Assumes Command

marsbit6m ago

Two Survival Structures of Market Makers and Arbitrageurs

Market makers and arbitrageurs represent two distinct survival structures in high-frequency trading. Market makers primarily use limit orders (makers) to profit from the bid-ask spread, enjoying high capital efficiency (nominally 100%) but bearing inventory risk. This "inventory risk" arises from passive, fragmented, and discontinuous order fills in the limit order book (LOB). This risk, while a potential cost, can also contribute to excess profit if managed within control boundaries, allowing for mean reversion. Market makers essentially sell "time" (uncertainty over execution timing) to the market for price control and low fees. In contrast, cross-exchange arbitrageurs typically use market orders (takers) to exploit price differences or funding rates, resulting in lower nominal capital efficiency (requiring capital on both exchanges) and higher transaction costs. Their risk exposure stems from asymmetries in exchange rules (e.g., minimum order sizes), execution latency, and infrastructure risks (e.g., ADL, oracle drift). These exposures are active, exogenous gaps that primarily erode profits rather than contribute to them. Arbitrageurs essentially sell "space" (capital sunk across venues) for localized, immediate certainty. Both strategies engage in a trade-off between execution friction and residual risk. Optimal systems allow for temporary, controlled risk exposure rather than enforcing zero exposure at all costs. Their evolution converges towards hybrid models: arbitrageurs may use maker orders to reduce costs, while market makers may use taker orders or hedges for risk management. Ultimately, both use different forms of risk exposure—market makers exposing inventory, arbitrageurs immobilizing capital—to extract marginal, hard-won certainty from the market.

链捕手6m ago

Two Survival Structures of Market Makers and Arbitrageurs

链捕手6m ago

Bitcoin Short-Term Holder Basis Remains High Within Biggest Supply Cluster

Bitcoin's recent recovery from February lows is approaching a critical supply cluster between $84,000 and $88,000, which holds the largest concentration of Bitcoin supply on the current chart. This zone represents the cost basis for short-term holders (investors who bought within the last 155 days) and is stacked with "trapped" sellers who bought near those levels and are now at breakeven. Technical analysis suggests the rally faces significant resistance in this area. Two primary scenarios are outlined: a direct push into the $84k-$86k zone followed by a rejection and pullback to $70,000 support, or a more volatile path involving a dip before testing the supply cluster. A weekly close above $84,000 would weaken the bearish rejection case, but a decisive break above $86,900-$88,000 is needed for a stronger bullish confirmation. Bitcoin is currently trading around $80,430.

bitcoinist12m ago

Bitcoin Short-Term Holder Basis Remains High Within Biggest Supply Cluster

bitcoinist12m ago

Who Will Define the Rules of the AI Era? Anthropic Discusses the 2028 US-China AI Landscape

This article, based on Anthropic's analysis, outlines the intensifying systemic competition between the U.S./allies and China for AI leadership by 2028. It argues that access to advanced computing power ("compute") is the critical bottleneck, where the U.S. currently holds a significant advantage through chip export controls and allied innovation. However, China's AI labs remain competitive by exploiting policy loopholes—via chip smuggling, overseas data center access, and "model distillation" attacks to copy U.S. model capabilities—keeping them close to the frontier. The piece presents two contrasting scenarios for 2028. In the first, decisive U.S. action to tighten compute controls and curb distillation locks in a 12-24 month AI capability lead, cementing democratic influence over global AI norms, security, and economic infrastructure. In the second, policy inaction allows China to achieve near-parity through continued access to U.S. technology, enabling Beijing to promote its AI stack globally and integrate advanced AI into its military and governance systems, altering the strategic balance. Anthropic contends that maintaining a decisive U.S. lead is essential for shaping safe AI development and governance. The core recommendation is for U.S. policymakers to urgently close compute and model access loopholes while promoting global adoption of the U.S. AI technology stack to secure a lasting strategic advantage.

marsbit2h ago

Who Will Define the Rules of the AI Era? Anthropic Discusses the 2028 US-China AI Landscape

marsbit2h ago

“Why Didn’t You Buy 2x Long SK Hynix?”

The article discusses the immense popularity of the "2x Long SK Hynix ETF" (07709.HK) in Hong Kong, which became the world's largest single-stock leveraged ETF by May 2026. Launched in October 2025, the ETF's net value soared over 1000% in seven months, significantly outperforming the 324% gain of SK Hynix's underlying stock, driven by the AI boom and a critical shift in industry demand from computing power to memory. It highlights the mechanics and risks of daily-rebalanced leveraged ETFs. In a smooth bullish market, they generate amplified returns, but during volatile periods—exemplified by market swings during geopolitical tensions in the Strait of Hormuz in March-April 2026—they suffer severe "volatility decay," where choppy price action can cause losses far exceeding twice the drop of the underlying asset. The piece frames SK Hynix, as NVIDIA's primary HBM supplier, within the classic cycle of the memory chip industry—a commoditized sector prone to boom-and-bust cycles of shortage, price hikes, overcapacity, and crashes. While current AI-driven demand and high margins (Q1 2026毛利率~79%) create a "super cycle," the article questions its sustainability. It warns that extreme profits will inevitably tempt competitors like Samsung and Micron to ramp up HBM production, potentially eroding scarcity. Furthermore, the entire narrative remains tethered to the massive AI capital expenditure of tech giants. In conclusion, the ETF's trajectory symbolizes the accelerated, all-in nature of the current AI revolution, where timeframes are compressed and market moves are extreme. However, it also underscores that while industry trends define ultimate returns, macro-geopolitical risks dictate the volatile and uncertain path to get there.

marsbit2h ago

“Why Didn’t You Buy 2x Long SK Hynix?”

marsbit2h 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 S (S) are presented below.

活动图片

Top Questions

Hot Categoriesright-arrow

Hot Tagsright-arrow