Is Bitcoin’s ‘supercycle’ still possible as on-chain signals turn red?

ambcryptoPublished on 2026-01-24Last updated on 2026-01-24

Abstract

Bitcoin's price declined from near $97k to around $90k, testing investor conviction as on-chain signals turn bearish. This drop is driven by institutional selling, significant ETF outflows, and potential selling from major holders like GameStop, which may realize substantial losses. Despite weak sentiment and cautious on-chain metrics indicating building bear momentum, prominent figures like CZ remain bullish, forecasting a "supercycle" and a year-end target of $215k. This divergence between weak fundamentals and optimistic predictions risks creating a liquidation trap, especially as leverage increases. The current setup challenges the motivation to HODL amid macro uncertainty.

Investor conviction is being tested once again.

Over the past ten days, a sizable group of holders has slipped underwater as major top-cap assets failed to hold key resistance levels. As a result, many traders who bought near the local top are now feeling the pressure.

Bitcoin [BTC] is no exception. Just ten days ago, BTC printed its second-highest high, clearing the $95k level. However, the rally quickly faded, with the price topping near $97k, pushing several cohorts into unrealized losses.

Naturally, attention now turns to what could reignite HODLing.

Macro FUD and institutional selling test BTC’s resilience

The curent macro setup isn’t offering much support. Volatility is already rotating capital into safe havens, while Bitcoin’s institutional bid continues to soften, evidenced by nearly $1.8 billion in ETF outflows in under a week.

Meanwhile, GameStop doesn’t seem convinced either. Its on-chain wallets recently moved 100% of Bitcoin holdings to Coinbase Prime. Moreover, looking at its BTC balance sheet, the move likely suggests potential selling.

Back in mid-May 2025, the firm accumulated 4,710 BTC at an average price of $107k, deploying $504 million. With BTC now hovering around $90k, that position suggests potential realized losses of about $76 million.

All things considered, getting investors to HODL looks like a tough ask.

Bitcoin’s institutional bid is weak, and overall sentiment is low. And yet, the big players are talking up a Bitcoin “supercycle.” Are they seeing something the market hasn’t priced in yet, or is this just another setup for a shakeout?

CZ signals Bitcoin “supercycle,” defying weak sentiment

Defying macro FUD, heavyweights are still bullish on a BTC supercycle.

For 2026, the chart from RR2Capital highlights three bold predictions, averaging $215k as the year-end target for Bitcoin. Meanwhile, Binance founder CZ echoed a similar outlook in a recent video interview.

Naturally, the question remains: What are they betting on? On-chain metrics paint a cautious picture. Bitcoin’s bear momentum is building, with Net Realized Profit/Loss turning red as investors begin realizing losses.

Historically, moves like this have lined up with deeper corrections.

That puts Bitcoin’s $85k support under pressure, driven by institutional selling, ETF outflows, and fading conviction from heavyweights like GameStop. As a result, the motivation for investors to HODL is weakening.

In this context, bullish Bitcoin forecasts appear less data‐driven and more influenced by external factors such as volatility surrounding the crypto bill, an overheated metals market, and the recent U.S. withdrawal of E.U. tariffs.

Hence, this divergence highlights the gap between market fundamentals and optimistic forecasts, pulling in speculative capital and potentially setting Bitcoin up for a liquidation trap, as BTC leverage ramps back up.


Final Thoughts

  • Bitcoin slipped from $97k to $90k amid institutional selling, ETF outflows, and major holders like GameStop potentially selling.
  • Despite cautious on-chain metrics, heavyweights like CZ forecast a BTC “supercycle,” creating a divergence that could trigger a liquidation trap.

Trending Cryptos

Related Questions

QWhat key factors are testing investor conviction in Bitcoin according to the article?

AInvestor conviction is being tested by Bitcoin's failure to hold key resistance levels, institutional selling, nearly $1.8 billion in ETF outflows in under a week, and major holders like GameStop potentially selling their holdings, which has pushed many recent buyers into unrealized losses.

QWhat specific action did GameStop take with its Bitcoin holdings, and what does it suggest?

AGameStop moved 100% of its Bitcoin holdings to Coinbase Prime. Given that the firm accumulated 4,710 BTC at an average price of $107k and BTC is now around $90k, this move likely suggests potential selling and would result in realized losses of about $76 million.

QDespite weak on-chain signals, what bullish outlook are some heavyweights promoting for Bitcoin?

AHeavyweights like Binance founder CZ and analysts from RR2Capital are promoting a Bitcoin 'supercycle,' with an average year-end target of $215k for 2026, defying the current weak market sentiment and cautious on-chain metrics.

QWhat on-chain metric is mentioned as turning red, and what has it historically signaled?

AThe Net Realized Profit/Loss metric has turned red, indicating that investors are beginning to realize losses. Historically, such moves have lined up with deeper corrections in the Bitcoin market.

QWhat does the article suggest is the primary risk created by the divergence between weak fundamentals and optimistic forecasts?

AThe article suggests that this divergence is pulling in speculative capital and potentially setting Bitcoin up for a liquidation trap, especially as BTC leverage ramps back up, highlighting a gap between market fundamentals and optimistic forecasts.

Related Reads

Dialogue with Jia Hang | Looking Back at Two Decades of Chinese Payment Going Global

**Summary: A Conversation with Jia Hang on Two Decades of China's Payment Globalization** Jia Hang, a veteran with over twenty years in payments, reflects on China's attempts to build a global payment network through three key phases: UnionPay (card networks), Alipay+ (digital wallets), and now, stablecoins. His journey began at UnionPay International, aiming to establish China's card network abroad. While successful in following Chinese tourists ("where Chinese go, UnionPay goes"), it struggled to achieve true global scale. The core lesson: card networks like Visa/Mastercard's unassailable advantage isn't just technical standards, but their deeply entrenched **governance and profit-sharing models** that create powerful network effects. Competing as the "same species" is nearly impossible. At Ant Group, he led Alipay+, a strategy to bypass card networks by interconnecting local e-wallets worldwide. While innovative, it faced a similar ceiling. Mobile QR payments and card swipes were essentially **the same species competing for the same pie**, lacking a disruptive value proposition for users or a sustainable new incentive model to replace the card networks' established flywheel. Today, at Singapore's DCS, Jia focuses on stablecoin-based payments. He argues stablecoins represent a fundamental shift. They are not competing with Visa for consumer payments but challenging the **traditional banking and account system for value movement**. Products like "U Cards" (stablecoin-linked payment cards) are transitional, leveraging existing card networks for acceptance while building new rails. The real potential lies in stablecoins enabling seamless, low-cost global value transfer, potentially reorganizing the financial infrastructure around **accounts rather than cards**. Jia believes stablecoin adoption for local retail payments, cross-border transactions, and as high-yield savings vehicles is becoming irreversible. This could gradually reduce reliance on traditional fiat channels, especially in regions with weak currencies or capital controls. The quest for the "next global payment network" continues, now centered on whether stablecoins can successfully bridge Web2 and Web3, establish new governance, and create compelling user value beyond mere cost reduction.

marsbit12m ago

Dialogue with Jia Hang | Looking Back at Two Decades of Chinese Payment Going Global

marsbit12m ago

Circle's Stock Price Plunges 76%, Hong Kong Dollar Stablecoin Set to Launch Within Two Weeks

Circle's stock price has plunged approximately 76% from its 2023 peak, reflecting a major market revaluation. Despite this, Circle President Heath Tarbert emphasized the company's focus on long-term execution and its dominant position with USDC's $73 billion circulation across 34 blockchains. The competitive landscape is intensifying. A new consortium-backed stablecoin, Open USD, is attempting to challenge incumbents by sharing reserve yields with partners. More significantly, Visa's new stablecoin platform, initially supporting Open USD while also being compatible with USDC, could erode Circle's network effects. In response, Circle is expanding into real-world payments through partnerships like the one with Japan's JCB. Separately, Tether (USDT) faces a two-year compliance window under new U.S. regulations, requiring it to adjust its reserve composition away from assets like Bitcoin and loans towards cash and U.S. Treasuries. Meanwhile, in Hong Kong, Standard Chartered-backed fintech firm Dian Dian is poised to launch a licensed HKD-pegged stablecoin (HKDAP), moving the industry into a phase where the real test is integrating licensed stablecoins into actual payment flows and corporate treasury systems. The sharp decline in Circle's stock underscores a broader shift: the stablecoin market is moving from a winner-takes-all dynamic to a multi-player competitive arena where execution, compliance, and real-world utility are becoming paramount.

marsbit13m ago

Circle's Stock Price Plunges 76%, Hong Kong Dollar Stablecoin Set to Launch Within Two Weeks

marsbit13m ago

Amidst Capital's Encirclement, Decentralization is the Sole Defense for Public Blockchains

In a landscape dominated by power and profit motives, the author argues that decentralization is not merely one desirable feature among many in blockchain design—it is the singular, non-negotiable defense against corporate and capital capture. The article adopts a Machiavellian, realist perspective on human institutions, positing that businesses will inevitably attempt to co-opt any valuable network to protect their profits and dominance. While external attacks like 51% forks are often discussed, the greater existential risk is internal capture—the gradual erosion of a protocol’s neutrality by vested interests, as seen historically with platforms like Visa and Google. The piece critiques permissioned chains, highly centralized “permissionless” layer-1s, and layer-2s without sufficient decentralization (e.g., single sequencers) as inherently vulnerable. These compromised systems, promoted by established financial players, are framed as delaying tactics to stifle truly open networks that threaten existing high-fee, inefficient business models. Real-world examples, such as closed enterprise consortiums that exclude competitors, illustrate how such systems cement oligopolies rather than foster innovation. The author concludes that while decentralized protocols like Ethereum are imperfect and costly to operate, they represent the only viable long-term equilibrium. In a market where value naturally flows to the most secure and neutral settlement layer, only maximally decentralized public blockchains can resist being subsumed by capital and powerful incumbents.

Foresight News23m ago

Amidst Capital's Encirclement, Decentralization is the Sole Defense for Public Blockchains

Foresight News23m ago

Who Decides the Rules of Bitcoin? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

Bitcoin's governance is once again at the center of a heated debate, this time ignited by BIP-110, the "Reduced Data Temporary Softfork." This proposal aims to curb non-monetary data (like inscriptions and Runes) by introducing seven new consensus-layer restrictions over a year, such as limiting new output scripts to 34 bytes and restoring the OP_RETURN cap to 83 bytes. The controversy stems from BIP-110's fundamental shift: it moves the battle against "spam" from node relay and miner policies to the consensus layer, rendering currently valid transactions invalid. Supporters, arguing that default policy governance has failed (highlighted by Bitcoin Core v30's relaxation of OP_RETURN limits), see this as necessary to protect node resources and Bitcoin's monetary focus. Opponents, led by figures like Michael Saylor and Adam Back, warn it dangerously centralizes governance. Saylor listed 110 reasons against it, criticizing its low 55% miner activation threshold and potential for chain splits. Back emphasized Bitcoin's "permissionless" ethos, arguing no single group should impose value judgments via consensus rules. Further complicating matters, technical critiques suggest BIP-110 may be technically circumventable, and a "BlockSlop" vulnerability in its upgrade path poses a consensus risk. The debate has drawn in diverse stakeholders: miners (with pools like Ocean signaling support and Foundry polling clients), node operators (like Bitcoin Knots), and new players like corporate treasury holder MicroStrategy (Saylor), whose market influence adds a novel dimension. Ultimately, BIP-110 acts as a governance stress test, exposing the unresolved question: who decides Bitcoin's rules? It pits the authority of miners, node operators, developers, and capital holders against each other, with each side claiming to defend Bitcoin's core principles of neutrality and security.

marsbit40m ago

Who Decides the Rules of Bitcoin? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

marsbit40m 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