Will Zcash's ZEC return to $500 or higher before 2026?

cointelegraphPublished on 2025-12-09Last updated on 2025-12-09

Abstract

Zcash (ZEC) surged over 10% to $425, extending its recovery from recent lows around $300. Analysts note a potential double-bottom pattern, suggesting a possible rally toward $500 if key support holds. Large investors (whales) have accumulated over $100 million in ZEC, while smaller traders sold, indicating confidence among major holders. However, technical risks remain, including an overbought RSI and a bear flag pattern that could lead to a pullback toward $260–$280 if the uptrend weakens. The article highlights both bullish and bearish scenarios without providing investment advice.

Zcash (ZEC) extended its recovery on Tuesday, rising 10.29% in the past 24 hours to over $425, or 41.50% up from the lows of around $300 just a week ago.

Key takeaways:

  • ZEC eyes $500 as double-bottom signals and whale accumulation support the recovery.

  • Bear-flag risks persist, with overbought RSI hinting at a possible pullback toward $260–$280.

ZEC/USDT four-hour price chart. Source: TradingView

The sharp rebound prompted some analysts to anticipate a further rally to or above $500 in the coming days.

Can Zcash retest the psychological resistance?

From double bottom to $500 ZEC next?

Trader Goomba identified Zcash’s recent swing lows as a potential double-bottom structure.

The pattern appeared to develop in the $300–$310 region, where ZEC recorded two similar troughs within a short time frame. The subsequent move above the interim resistance near $380 marked what the trader described as a neckline breakout.

ZEC/USDT daily price chart. Source: TradingView/Goomba

Such formations carry a measured objective that places the next notable target in the $480–$500 range, coinciding with a previous supply zone.

Goomba noted that the structure remained valid as long as ZEC held above the reclaimed neckline level.

Zcash whales are absorbing selling pressure

ZEC’s retail holders ($0–$1,000) and mid-sized traders ($1,000–$100,000) cut more than $30 million in net exposure during the latest rebound, according to data highlighted by trader Ardi.

ZEC/USDT hourly chart. Source: TradingView/Ardi

In contrast, larger whale accounts ($100,000–$10 million) added over $100 million in the same period, suggesting a divergence in behavior.

Simply put, smaller participants appeared to sell into the rally while higher-capital accounts increased their exposure.

Related: What’s behind the surge in privacy tokens as the rest of the market weakens?

That raises ZEC’s potential to continue its rebound toward the $500 level, given that the larger investors are looking forward to higher prices.

Bear flag may spoil party for ZEC bulls

Zcash’s latest rebound unfolded inside what still appeared to be a classic bear flag pattern, a weakening relief channel that formed after a steep November sell-off.

Historically, these rising channels resolved to the downside, and ZEC’s failure to hold above the flag’s upper trendline suggested that sellers were already regaining control as of Tuesday.

ZEC/USDT four-hour price chart. Source: TradingView

Price also struggled to break above the 200-day exponential moving average (200-4H EMA; the blue wave), reinforcing the bearish continuation setup.

At the same time, ZEC’s relative strength index (RSI) had pushed above the overbought threshold of 70, a region where upside momentum often fades.

Together, these signals suggested that a breakdown from the flag could have opened the door to a move toward the $260–$280 zone, which is approximately 35% below current price levels.

This article does not contain investment advice or recommendations. Every investment and trading move involves risk, and readers should conduct their own research when making a decision.

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.

marsbit43m ago

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

marsbit43m 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