Bitcoin’s Futures market turns bearish: Will BTC drop to $112K?

ambcryptoPublished on 2025-08-18Last updated on 2025-08-19

Key Takeaways

Bitcoin’s Futures market sentiment index drops to 36% entering the bearish territory. Retail bearishness dominates Futures and spot market as a drop to $112k looms.


Since hitting $124k, Bitcoin [BTC] has declined for five consecutive days, hitting a local low of $114,442. In fact, at press time, Bitcoin was trading at $115,055, marking a 3.24% drop over the past week. 

Amid this sharp drop, Futures are slowly turning bearish, and that might not be a good thing for BTC. Here’s the reason why.

Bitcoin Futures look bearish

According to CryptoQuant analyst Axel Adler, Bitcoin’s Sentiment Index on the Futures market has declined to 36%. With this drop, the index now sits significantly below the neutral zone or bearish territory. 

BTC sentiment indexBTC sentiment index

Source: CryptoQuant

Typically, a drop of this index drops below 45 suggests that most traders are becoming more risk-averse and are expecting lower prices. Thus, Futures are experiencing fear-driven activity that could fuel further downside. 

Historically, Futures sentiment has played a significant role in Bitcoin’s price movement. For instance, on the 11th to the 14th of August, when the Sentiment Index jumped to 70%, Bitcoin’s price surged to $123k. 

Therefore, the recent drop implies that bounces will be offloaded, resulting in price fluctuations. Under these circumstances, Adler suggests that Bitcoin will face downward risk, even dropping to $112k. 

Retailers are driving bearishness 

AMBCrypto’s look at the Futures market showed that retail traders dominated and look extremely bearish. 

For starters, Futures Average Order Size data from CryptoQuant showed massive retail orders. 

Bitcoin futures average order sizeBitcoin futures average order size

Source: CryptoQuant

These small-scale participants are mainly shorting the market. According to Coinglass, Bitcoin’s Long Short Ratio declined to 0.8765, with shorts accounting for 53%. 

BTC long short ratioBTC long short ratio

Source: CoinGlass

At the same time, long positions accounted for 46.7% of the total Futures contracts. Often, when shorts dominate, it indicates that most participants are betting on prices to decline, a clear bearish sign. 

Selling activity intensifies too

With retail traders in the Futures market being bearish, they are aggressively offloading their holdings on the spot market. 

Bitcoin Taker buy sell ratioBitcoin Taker buy sell ratio

Source: CryptoQuant

According to CryptoQuant, the Bitcoin Taker Buy Sell Ratio has declined for five consecutive days, hitting a 2-week low. Such a sustained drop implies that most market participants are aggressively selling their BTC. 

As a result, the crypto’s Scarcity has declined significantly, dropping to 41k BTC from a monthly high of $53k BTC. 

BTC stock to flow ratioBTC stock to flow ratio

Source: CryptoQuant

Typically, when BTC scarcity declines, it means there are more tokens readily available for immediate selling. Lower scarcity often precedes reduced prices, especially if demand fails to keep pace with rising supply. 

More losses ahead for BTC?

Bitcoin experienced a sustained decline as retailers turned bearish in the Futures and spot markets.

As a result, the king coin’s Stochastic RSI declined to 10, reaching extremely oversold territory. At the same time, the Relative Strength Index dropped to 44.

BTC RSIBTC RSI

Source: TradingView

Typically, when momentum indicators drop to such levels, it indicates strong downward momentum and the potential for trend continuation.

Having said that, if retail continues selling and shorting the market, BTC could test the $112k support, as predicted by Adler.

However, if too many of them are positioned bearish, we could see a rebound driven by a short squeeze with BTC reclaiming $117k.

Share

Trending Cryptos

Related Reads

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

The article "Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?" explores the complex and often contentious integration of AI into the cultural and creative industries, particularly film and television. It begins with the cancellation of Amazon's AI-generated animation "Punky Duck," highlighting the ethical debates surrounding AI content. AI's rapid advancement is transforming video production, enabling cost-effective, full-length AI films (e.g., "RAPHAEL," "Dreams of Violets") while sparking industry resistance over issues like "synthetic actors." The core debate has shifted from whether to use AI to how to use it responsibly. The article analyzes why AI's entry into film is uniquely unsettling. It distinguishes between "cultural fast food" (short-form, fast-paced content like micro-dramas) and "cultural main courses" (traditional, long-form film/TV). AI currently excels at the former, matching its fragmented narratives, shallow emotional needs, and free-to-consumer models. However, venturing into the latter challenges the human-centric essence of storytelling—creativity, emotional depth, and the unique value of human labor and experience. While AI can generate massive volumes of content and lower costs, it risks devaluing human creativity, leading to homogenized output, and creating unfair competition through potential intellectual property infringement. Its efficiency also amplifies content safety risks, making preemptive governance crucial. To counter these risks, the article proposes establishing clear boundaries guided by a human-centered AI content perspective. It outlines four principles: 1) Amplify, rather than displace, human creative space; 2) Respect and protect human creative output; 3) Ensure human creative control and responsibility remain paramount; and 4) Guarantee transparency and traceability in AI creation. The conclusion emphasizes that humans must act as the "helmsmen" of technology, steering AI development to enhance, not replace, the core human values at the heart of cultural expression.

marsbit19m ago

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

marsbit19m ago

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

The recent discovery that two articles (published in 1940 and 1942) by Max Planck, the Nobel laureate and founder of quantum theory, are marked as "retracted" on Springer's digital platform highlights a curious clash between historical publishing practices and modern automated systems. An investigation suggests these retractions are algorithmic errors, not due to fraud or misconduct. The papers, philosophical reflections on science published in *Die Naturwissenschaften*, were likely flagged by the platform's systems. One article, a republished lecture, may have been mistaken for duplicate publication. Another, sharing a title with a prior article by a different author (a common practice for continuing debates at the time), may have triggered a similar automated check. The digital versions have even been replaced with blank pages, contrary to normal practice of preserving retracted texts. This incident underscores how contemporary digital infrastructure, built around concepts like "self-plagiarism" and strict copyright, can misclassify and obscure legitimate historical scholarly communication. It serves as a warning that digital archives are not neutral mirrors of the past but are filtered by platform rules, potentially distorting the scientific record. As AI systems increasingly rely on such databases, such erroneous metadata could propagate, affecting how future tools interpret and access historical knowledge.

marsbit23m ago

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

marsbit23m ago

Refunds! Claude 4.8 Sees Overnight Major 'Dumb-Down', GPT-5.6's Computational Power Reportedly 'Halved'

The AI community is currently alarmed by widespread reports of significant performance degradation in two leading models. This article details a "mass self-testing frenzy" triggered by a mysterious prompt designed to detect a hidden "Juice" value, representing a model's reasoning compute budget. On OpenAI's side, users suspect a covert, limited test of a "GPT-5.6-sol" model is underway. When using a specific XML prompt on the Codex platform, a normal "gpt-5.5 xhigh" model reportedly returns a Juice value of 768. However, some users routed to the suspected GPT-5.6 test receive a drastically reduced value of 128—a six-fold decrease. This has sparked debate on whether it signifies a major efficiency leap or a "watered-down, low-cost version" achieved by slashing reasoning depth to save computational expenses. Simultaneously, Anthropic's Claude models, particularly the flagship Opus 4.8 Max, are facing intense user backlash for a perceived "physical brain cut." Users on platforms like Reddit report a dramatic decline in the model's once-impressive reasoning, with complaints of it becoming "absurdly" weakened, performing worse than older, lighter models like Haiku. Specific criticisms include: losing long-context memory, refusing to think deeply even in high-reasoning modes, providing instant incorrect answers, and engaging in unhelpful, argumentative, or "gaslighting" behavior where it contradicts users unnecessarily. The article speculates these "stealth downgrades" might be a calculated corporate strategy. Companies could initially release models with temporarily boosted compute to create an illusion of a major breakthrough, then silently scale back parameters later to manage unsustainable inference costs. A proposed underlying cause is a tightened funding environment, potentially exacerbated by SpaceX's massive IPO soaking up market liquidity, which could delay AI company IPOs and force cost-cutting measures like model "nerfing." The core issue highlighted is the asymmetry of information: subscribers pay for a service that can be silently and fundamentally altered without notification or explanation. The viral "Juice test" resonates because it represents users' desire for transparency about what they are actually paying for.

marsbit59m ago

Refunds! Claude 4.8 Sees Overnight Major 'Dumb-Down', GPT-5.6's Computational Power Reportedly 'Halved'

marsbit59m ago

Trading

Spot

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