Pi coin price prediction – What next after altcoin rejects $0.190 retest?

ambcryptoPublished on 2026-02-07Last updated on 2026-02-07

Abstract

Pi's price has maintained a clear bearish trend, accelerating downward after a decisive breakdown below the $0.190 support level, which has turned into resistance. Sellers have shown aggressive intent, with expanding candle bodies and repeated closes near session lows. Current market conditions and lack of buyers increase the risk of a decline toward the $0.1302 support level. As price approaches this liquidity floor, absorption potential may rise if bids convert into buying pressure, signaled by long lower wicks and firmer closes above $0.130. However, if selling volume overwhelms demand or broader market weakness persists, a breakdown below $0.130 could expose further downside toward the $0.115–$0.100 historical demand zone.

Pi’s [PI] price action has maintained a clearly defined bearish structure so far, with downside momentum accelerating with consistency.

Following a consolidation above $0.190, sellers forced a decisive breakdown that quickly shifted market positioning. That decline showed intent. Especially as candle bodies expanded on the lower trend, and repeated closes printed near the lower session – Reflecting aggressive supply rather than passive drift.

Structurally, the $0.190-level turned into resistance following the breakdown. Ongoing selling pressure and lack of buyers now increase the risk of prices moving down to the $0.1302 support level.

If the next sessions continue to follow the same pattern of selling, this level will serve as a test for demand.

$0.130 liquidity floor enters critical absorption zone

At the time of writing, Pi’s price seemed to be compressing towards the $0.130 liquidity floor. As the price approaches this range, liquidity concentration increases. This can slow down accelerated declines while testing sellers’ commitment.

Consequently, absorption probability rises if resting bids convert into aggressive market buys, often reflected through long lower wicks and firmer closes above $0.130.

In turn, tighter candle bodies may develop too, signaling an early demand response. However, sweep risk remains elevated if expanding sell volume overrides the bid wall.

Moreover, broader market weakness or liquidity rotation could hasten that breach. Should the price close below $0.130, it may quickly enter a low-liquidity pocket near $0.115, exposing further downside towards the $0.100 historical demand zone.

Related Questions

QWhat is the current bearish structure of Pi's price action indicating?

APi's price action has maintained a clearly defined bearish structure, showing consistent downside momentum with accelerated selling pressure.

QWhat level did the price break down from, turning it into resistance?

AThe price broke down from the $0.190 level, which subsequently turned into a resistance level.

QWhat is the next key support level that Pi's price is at risk of falling to?

AThe next key support level is $0.1302, which is at risk if selling pressure continues and buyers remain absent.

QWhat could happen if the price closes below the $0.130 support level?

AIf the price closes below $0.130, it could quickly drop to a low-liquidity pocket near $0.115, exposing further downside towards the $0.100 historical demand zone.

QWhat signs would indicate early demand response as the price approaches the $0.130 level?

AEarly signs of demand response would include long lower wicks, firmer closes above $0.130, and the development of tighter candle bodies.

Related Reads

Anthropic Apologized, But the Business of 'Safety' Hasn't Stopped

On June 11, Anthropic apologized not for a model failure, but for a lack of transparency. Its new Claude Fable 5 model was found to be secretly rerouting requests from users engaged in advanced AI model development to a weaker version, Opus 4.8, without any notification. The company's response—promising future notifications for such "downgrades"—was met with user skepticism. The article argues the core issue isn't technical but commercial: Anthropic's "safety" measures are primarily a business strategy. A key feature, the "intelligent safety classifier," marketed as user protection, is described as a tool for "competitive defense" to protect Anthropic's market lead by limiting rivals' research capabilities. This covert mechanism was designed for low "false positives," precisely targeting AI researchers. Anthropic's model involves a calculated three-step process: publishing alarming security research to amplify public anxiety, offering its Fable 5 model with a "safety classifier" as a premium-priced solution, and cashing in through a planned high-value IPO. This contrasts with OpenAI's more direct "tool-and-traffic" approach. The apology, merely changing a secret downgrade to a visible one, is seen as a business "patch" rather than a principled shift. The incident risks damaging Anthropic's "safest AI" reputation among the developer community, which underpins its valuation and appeal to government and corporate clients. Ultimately, the article concludes that for Anthropic, safety is a business, and the apology is merely customer service for that business.

marsbit49m ago

Anthropic Apologized, But the Business of 'Safety' Hasn't Stopped

marsbit49m ago

The Niche Consensus Among Elites: Has College Become an Expensive Waste?

**Summary:** A growing "anti-college" movement is gaining traction among elite circles in Silicon Valley, challenging the traditional value of a four-year university degree. Proponents argue that college has become an expensive, slow, and increasingly irrelevant waste of time, especially in the fast-paced tech world where opportunities pass by quickly. The movement is led by figures like billionaire Peter Thiel, who criticizes universities for high costs, ideological indoctrination, and stifling true innovation. His "Thiel Fellowship" pays young people to drop out and pursue ventures. Companies like Palantir Technologies (co-founded by Thiel) fuel this trend with programs like the "Meritocracy Fellowship," which offers high school graduates paid internships as an alternative to immediate college enrollment, promising a practical "Palantir Degree." Key drivers include: 1. **Economics:** Skyrocketing student debt versus the allure of immediate, high-paying tech jobs or startup funding. 2. **Technology:** AI and online tools lowering barriers to self-education and product development, making formal instruction seem inefficient. 3. **Culture:** A backlash against perceived "woke" ideology and DEI policies in universities, coupled with a belief that these institutions suppress meritocracy and masculine drive. The movement is notably male-dominated. Critics, like economist David Deming, warn against overgeneralizing from dropout success stories (survivorship bias). He emphasizes that genuine autodidacts are rare, corporate training is narrowly focused, and the "college wage premium" remains high for most people. University liberal arts education, he argues, builds adaptable problem-solving skills and broad perspectives. The debate highlights a deeper crisis in education. The core model of the modern university appears increasingly mismatched with the speed of the information age. The movement signals a shift in the locus of learning from institutional "education" to personal, active "learning" powered by the internet and AI. Ultimately, this may not mean the end of university, but rather a painful evolution. The future likely holds more hybrid, personalized, and lifelong learning pathways. The central question becomes: in a world changing faster than any curriculum, how do we best learn?

marsbit1h ago

The Niche Consensus Among Elites: Has College Become an Expensive Waste?

marsbit1h ago

From Subsidies to Token-Based Pricing to Price Cuts: Is OpenAI Sparking a Price War? Is the Inflection Point for Token Economics Nearing?

The commercialization of generative AI is facing a critical inflection point as a potential price war looms. According to The Wall Street Journal, OpenAI is considering a significant cut to its token fees to compete with rival Anthropic, signaling a shift from a growth-at-all-costs model focused on token consumption. This move comes as both companies, reportedly losing billions on compute, prepare for IPOs, and as enterprise customers face "bill shock" from switching to usage-based token billing. Reports indicate poor ROI, with one analysis finding only 18 cents of every dollar spent on AI tokens generates user-facing value. The industry's initial phases—from flat-rate subscriptions to aggressive subsidies—have given way to a reckoning with real costs. Analysts debate the future: some predict a bifurcation between premium, high-cost models for complex tasks and cheaper alternatives for routine work, while others believe overall spending will still rise as agentic AI increases tokens per task. Notably, Chinese model DeepSeek's low-cost API is gaining traction with U.S. enterprises, adding competitive pressure. The core challenge is redefining value beyond token volume ("tokenmaxxing") toward measurable productivity ("valuemaxxing"), as the entire AI value chain, from cloud providers to chipmakers, feels the ripple effects of unsustainable pricing.

marsbit1h ago

From Subsidies to Token-Based Pricing to Price Cuts: Is OpenAI Sparking a Price War? Is the Inflection Point for Token Economics Nearing?

marsbit1h 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