Interview with Bitwise Investment Advisor: With tightening liquidity and geopolitical crises, is there still a bull market for BTC?
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Interview with Bitwise Investment Advisor: With tightening liquidity and geopolitical crises, is there still a bull market for BTC?
The biggest challenge in the current market is the lack of buying support, and Bitcoin's next upward cycle may benefit from institutional capital that does not rely on leverage.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsCompiled & Translated: TechFlow
Guest: Jeff Park, Investment Advisor at Bitwise & Partner and Chief Investment Officer at ProCap BTC
Host: Anthony Pompliano
Podcast Source: Anthony Pompliano
Original Title: The Bitcoin Bull Market Is CANCELLED?!
Air Date: November 20, 2025
Key Takeaways
Jeff Park is a partner and chief investment officer at ProCap BTC. In this conversation, we delve into the reasons behind Bitcoin's recent price decline and whether the market truly signals an impending bear market. Jeff analyzes key factors influencing market sentiment from perspectives such as liquidity pressure and global macroeconomic changes, pointing out that even if Bitcoin has underperformed this year, it may not necessarily be a completely pessimistic signal. We also discuss how Bitcoin prices could return to highs of $125,000 to $150,000, and how geopolitical dynamics in regions like Japan and China impact the global investment environment.
Highlights of Key Insights
-
Harvard was an early investor in the cryptocurrency space. Bitcoin is the largest holding in Harvard’s endowment fund.
-
Crypto is a classic trend asset—its price tends to fluctuate dramatically with shifts in market sentiment rather than reflecting value through traditional buy-low-sell-high mechanisms.
-
If Trump's approval ratings continue to fall or other chaotic events in Washington affect crypto legislation, these could become bearish factors for the market, potentially leading to a retest of the $75,000 support level and breaking the current upward momentum.
-
In this sentiment-driven market, investors need to maintain psychological agility and strategic flexibility.
-
The biggest challenge currently facing the market is the lack of buying support.
-
Bitcoin’s next bull cycle may benefit from institutional capital that does not rely on leverage.
-
Perhaps we actually need a correction like this to unleash Bitcoin’s “super cycle.” If we remain fixated on the four-year cycle framework, the market might develop a psychological burden, expecting 2026 to be a down year.
-
In the short term, positive signals may be hard to come by, as the global economy faces serious challenges including liquidity crises, geopolitical risks, and uncertainties surrounding Trump himself.
-
Unexpected black swan events could act as bullish catalysts for Bitcoin—one possibility being a sovereign nation suddenly announcing a Bitcoin purchase, especially among major developed nations within the OECD; another potential driver could be a solution to the quantum computing threat.
-
Future institutional decisions may directly influence user choices.
Why Has Bitcoin Fallen? Should Investors Be Concerned?
Anthony:
Bitcoin's price has been falling recently, causing significant concern among many investors. What’s your take? What do you think is happening behind the scenes?
Jeff:
I remember about two or three weeks ago we discussed adjusting expectations around Bitcoin’s price trajectory, especially after a massive liquidation event on October 10. That event not only shook market sentiment but also damaged retail confidence in Bitcoin. It further impacted long-term views on the institutional crypto market, which may not be functioning as smoothly as expected.
Right now, we still face many unresolved issues. For instance, rumors suggest some market makers may be facing bankruptcy risks, which could further suppress risk appetite. This week’s market behavior highlights a core characteristic of crypto: it’s a classic trend asset. Trend assets tend to experience sharp price swings driven by shifts in sentiment rather than reflecting value through traditional buy-low-sell-high logic. Bitcoin investing leans more toward “buy high, sell higher”—meaning entry often makes sense only when prices break through key levels.
When Bitcoin broke below the critical $100,000 support level, many began fearing a bear market. Now prices have slipped to around $90,000, even briefly dipping below that last night. Amid this, disappointment, panic, and uncertainty dominate. Yet seasoned investors who’ve lived through multiple cycles know this is part of the market’s self-correcting process. Eventually, new buyers and sellers will enter at price points they deem appropriate—trend breakouts are precisely how markets move.
At the same time, we must stay patient and recognize that the current uncertainty isn’t limited to crypto—it reflects broader global macroeconomic challenges. In such times, I recall a saying in trading communities: “It’s okay to be wrong, but not okay to repeat the same mistake.” Many investors are now reassessing portfolios, waiting for better entry points. This mindset can create a self-reinforcing cycle that pushes prices lower. Some now even predict Bitcoin could drop to $75,000.
In this sentiment-driven market, investors need to maintain psychological agility and strategic flexibility. And we should remember that Bitcoin’s core nature—as a trend asset—won’t change due to short-term volatility.
Are Technical Indicators Like the CME Gap Actually Important?
Anthony:
I follow technical analysis, but honestly, it feels more like a “game rule.” I pay attention to what others say, but I don’t fully believe in it or base decisions on it.
Still, lately many people have been talking about the CME gap. Now that Bitcoin has touched that level, prices seem to have stabilized or even slightly rebounded. Do you think these technically oriented indicators really matter?
Jeff:
Yes, I believe in a highly technical market like crypto, paying attention to microstructure is crucial—it’s an important tool for predicting short-term price movements. I usually distinguish between short-term price fluctuations and long-term trends. Long-term prices can be assessed through trend formation or mean reversion, but short-term moves are primarily driven by leveraged trading.
Crypto prices are heavily influenced by futures markets, especially perpetual futures. The structure of perpetual futures amplifies price volatility, so traders closely watch open interest and various liquidation levels. Since October, we’ve seen little recovery in leveraged long positions, while leveraged shorts remain active. This imbalance causes prices to move toward liquidity gaps. Perpetual futures are inherently tactical—once liquidation levels are hit, forced closures trigger, exacerbating volatility.
The market’s biggest current challenge is the lack of buying support. Without fresh buying, prices struggle to stabilize or recover. Institutional capital inflows, I believe, will be a key source of future rebounds. Thus, ETF (exchange-traded fund) flows become a critical indicator. Recently, we’ve seen negative ETF inflows, adding pressure on sentiment. Additionally, corporate balance sheets and Wall Street’s adoption of structured products could affect market liquidity.
Yet my intuition is that some investors still want to increase Bitcoin exposure—they’re just waiting for better entry points. Typically, investors feel more comfortable entering when prices offer a higher margin of safety. In fact, ETF investors are often the most stable market participants. Looking at Bitcoin ETF flows this year, there’s a clear gap between net inflows and outflows, suggesting long-term investors still have confidence in Bitcoin.
I believe Bitcoin’s next bull cycle may be fueled by institutional capital that doesn’t rely on leverage. These investors typically have a long-term view, seeing Bitcoin as part of a global portfolio rather than just comparing it to other cryptos. They may weigh Bitcoin against assets like gold, Nvidia stock, or Japanese government bonds when deciding allocation.
Harvard’s Bitcoin Holdings and Endowment Fund Investment Strategy
Anthony:
You worked at Harvard for a while. Recently, it was reported that Bitcoin is now the largest holding in Harvard’s endowment fund. Some speculate this might not just be a simple spot investment, but could involve certain short-term trading strategies.
Can you explain how endowment funds like Harvard typically invest? Should we pay special attention to this news, or are there nuances being overlooked?
Jeff:
Of course. Harvard’s endowment is indeed a fascinating case—their strategy has shifted multiple times across different CIO tenures. When I worked there, the fund operated very flexibly, almost like a hedge fund. Internal teams directly managed the balance sheet, executed high-frequency risk trades, and used SMA (single manager account) structures to boost capital efficiency. But under NARV’s leadership, Harvard gradually moved toward the more traditional Yale model—allocating capital to external managers to take risk while reducing direct internal exposure.
Regarding current strategy, I think their positioning is highly tactical and specific. For example, if Bitcoin’s core returns align with their asset allocation goals, including it in the portfolio is entirely rational. They might also exploit pricing differences between spot and futures for relative value trades—a strategy widely used by pension funds and other institutions in balance sheet management.
I can’t speak to Harvard’s exact current operations, but in crypto markets, low-risk or even risk-free arbitrage opportunities sometimes exist. For instance, hedging opposing Bitcoin exposures can yield stable returns.
Harvard was actually an early player in crypto. They entered via venture capital funds nearly 10 years ago, making them highly experienced and skilled at capturing alpha through multiple avenues.
Still, seeing Bitcoin become Harvard’s top holding is surprising. Whether due to directional long bets or market-neutral strategies, it shows Bitcoin’s market size and depth are now sufficient to accommodate a major allocation from a $55 billion endowment—an unimaginable scenario five years ago.
Have Options Changed Bitcoin’s Market Dynamics?
Anthony:
I’ve noticed the types of market participants are becoming increasingly diverse—not just retail, but also hedge funds, professional traders, and asset managers. Companies like BlackRock are entering via passive ETFs, while endowments may use balance sheets to operate, and national or corporate treasuries are participating through ETFs.
Assuming you have a one-dollar investment strategy, that dollar might not all flow into the spot market. If someone buys a Bitcoin ETF, theoretically the funds eventually reach the spot market, but perhaps only 99.9%—or some other fraction—actually does.
I wonder: has the emergence of options diverted capital and energy that would otherwise go into the spot market?
Jeff:
Today, there are indeed more choices—and more choices mean more complex layers of risk, maturity, and balance sheet structuring. These layers have changed the market’s direct exposure to Bitcoin spot. In other words, investors can now indirectly hold Bitcoin through sophisticated financial instruments without buying spot directly.
Before these complex products existed, our insights into crypto relied mainly on exchange volume, derivatives activity, and on-chain data—our primary decision-making inputs. Now, however, new decision nodes have emerged, particularly large institutional players. They use various credit instruments for Bitcoin-related investments, whose price movements and coupon yields directly affect Bitcoin demand. For example, companies like MicroStrategy use such tools to accumulate Bitcoin—something impossible in the past.
Although current trading volumes aren’t exceptionally high, I believe the impact of these complex products outweighs volume itself. For instance, recent news that an investor bought nearly $900 million worth of Bitcoin in one go became one of the market’s biggest headlines—showing that physical buying (direct spot purchases) remains the core market driver.
The market has evolved, but ultimately its dynamics still depend on investors seeking Bitcoin exposure and willing to bear Bitcoin risk. These demands must be fulfilled somehow—and that usually means someone, somewhere, is buying actual Bitcoin on the other side.
What Signals Does Jeff Watch for Market Optimism?
Anthony:
With the market低迷 and sentiment broadly pessimistic, where do you see signs of optimism? We’ve noticed some large holders starting to buy Bitcoin between $89,000 and $90,000. Despite constant bad news and widespread worry, can you point to any signals that give you hope?
Jeff:
One optimistic signal is Bitcoin showing resilience compared to other risk assets during intraday volatility. Even as equities fall sharply due to the so-called “AI bubble,” Bitcoin seems less affected. For example, if Palantir’s stock drops 40%, I don’t expect Bitcoin to fall 40% in the same cycle. Once Bitcoin decouples from other assets, that independence becomes attractive to institutional investors, offering differentiated performance in their portfolios.
For institutions, a key reason to choose Bitcoin is its divergent behavior from traditional assets. As long as Bitcoin maintains this “orthogonality” (low correlation), it stands a chance of inclusion in more portfolios. While Bitcoin’s gains may lag gold and its volatility may not match Nvidia’s, these differences are precisely its unique advantages. Over the long term, this trait suggests growing demand and potential. I see this as a strongly optimistic aspect.
Additionally, Bitcoin’s volatility itself is noteworthy. It might drop $35,000 in 40 days, but equally surge $35,000 in 20 days. Such rapid emotional shifts can act as market catalysts, especially when investors view Bitcoin as a distinct asset exposure.
Has the Four-Year Cycle Theory Officially Failed?
Anthony:
Moreover, Bitcoin’s volatility is a notable feature. It might drop $35,000 in 40 days, yet rise $35,000 in 20 days. Especially when investors treat it as a unique asset exposure, such rapid sentiment shifts can serve as market catalysts.
Jeff:
I believe, logically and fundamentally, the four-year cycle theory no longer holds. It was originally based on Bitcoin’s “halving” events, but today the halving’s impact on new demand is greatly diminished. Markets are now more driven by institutional capital needs, suggesting a new cycle aligned with institutional behavior should emerge.
Still, the four-year cycle theory may persist because many investors still believe in it. These are often early Bitcoin supporters whose faith borders on prophetic. Looking at holdings, wallets with over 10,000 BTC still control about one-third of total supply. If these whales believe in the four-year cycle and act accordingly, their belief could become self-fulfilling, continuing to influence prices. Rationally, this shouldn’t happen—but structural market realities make it possible.
Interestingly, Bitcoin is now priced below its年初 level. If year-end prices keep falling, it would break the four-year cycle pattern, possibly ushering in a new “three-year cycle.”
Perhaps we need such a drop to unlock Bitcoin’s “super cycle.” If we remain stuck in the four-year framework—say Bitcoin rises only 5% this year, closing at $98,000 or $99,000—the market may psychologically brace for 2026 as a down year. So I actually hope the market adjusts thoroughly this year, shedding dependence on the four-year cycle to pave the way for a fresh growth phase.
Anthony:
We all know Bitcoin has delivered astonishing performance in short bursts. Do you think it could rebound quickly in the next six weeks and even reach $140,000?
Jeff:
It’s certainly possible. The Bitcoin market is full of uncertainty—anything can happen. I believe the ideal outcome would be either a strong year-end rally making this a significant bull year, or a slight annual loss that finally frees us from the four-year cycle’s grip, clearing psychological hurdles for market development in 2026 and beyond. Either way, the Bitcoin market always holds possibilities.
Macro Risks: Liquidity, Global Conflict, and the “Trump Premium”
Jeff:
Realistically, what kind of catalysts do we need to shift the market? Frankly, positive signals may be hard to see in the short term, as the global economy faces serious challenges. For example, the previously mentioned “K-shaped economy” reflects worsening growth divergence—a long-term issue. Additionally, the U.S. economy may face further headwinds, such as liquidity crises. Now, market focus has even moved beyond whether the Fed will cut rates in December. While rate policy matters, the bigger issue is overall economic uncertainty and widespread anxiety.
Meanwhile, geopolitical risks are rising. For example, recent territorial disputes between Japan and China over the Diaoyu Islands could escalate into larger conflict. To many Westerners, this may seem distant, but essentially, it could spark a “Third World War” in Asia. If escalated, it might draw in Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea. I understand Japan sent diplomats last night to ease tensions, but China rejected the proposal and took a firm stance, indicating no positive progress. Behind this game lies China feeling cornered in its trade war with the U.S., using this as a negotiating chip. But resolving such issues takes time.
If this geopolitical uncertainty persists, it may become the primary reason for market risk-off behavior—even outweighing the impact of Fed rate cuts. Under such conditions, Bitcoin’s chances of reaching $150,000 would be suppressed.
Another notable risk is Trump. If we accept the “Trump umbrella” theory, his policies and influence could be a major reason Bitcoin rises from $75,000 to $125,000.
But equally important, if Trump’s approval ratings keep falling, or if chaotic events in Washington disrupt crypto legislation, this positive effect could reverse and become a market drag. We must ask ourselves: have these risks been fully priced in? If not, the market may retest the $75,000 support, breaking the current uptrend.
Of course, it’s hard to predict exactly what catalysts will emerge. Anything is possible, but true catalysts are usually unexpected major events.
What Might a Positive Surprise for Bitcoin Look Like?
Jeff:
Unexpected black swan events could act as bullish catalysts for Bitcoin. So what kind of black swan would positively impact Bitcoin? I think one possibility is a sovereign nation suddenly announcing a Bitcoin purchase—especially a major developed country within the OECD. If we wake up one morning to such news, and the country actually acts on it, Bitcoin could surge to $150,000 overnight. But the news must be real—not the fake announcements we’ve seen over the past year.
Another potential driver for Bitcoin’s price is a solution to the quantum computing threat. Quantum computing has long been seen as a potential danger, capable of breaking Bitcoin’s encryption. But revisiting this, suppose large Bitcoin holders (“whales”) are selling—their reasons may be as irrational as their original 2011 or 2012 purchase motives. Thus, we must consider these tail events (extreme scenarios) as potential catalysts for behavioral change. If whales fear quantum threats and a solution emerges, it could at least slow selling pressure. Once selling eases, we may see buyers gradually provide stronger financial support for price action.
This isn’t just about demand—it’s also about supply. We need to rebalance market supply and demand to create better conditions for Bitcoin’s price.
Additionally, this weekend, a prominent cryptographer named Sorensen issued a concerning statement—he suggested Bitcoin’s encryption could be broken by quantum computing by 2028, much earlier than many expected. We’re talking about a four-year horizon. This potential risk looms like a dark cloud over Bitcoin. Only when these catastrophic tail risks are fully resolved will supply-side shocks disappear, allowing the market to achieve true stability and growth.
How to Assess the Risk of Quantum Computing?
Anthony:
On quantum computing, I often say there isn’t a real quantum computer yet. Scientists may be getting closer, but it’s still a theoretical threat—like flying cars, research continues, but it hasn’t materialized.
So should we worry about this technology? Do you try to assess its risk, assign a probability, or just wait and deal with it when it comes? How do you view this?
Jeff:
I think we can observe market reactions—what drives interest in crypto and how people “vote” with their money and wallets. Recently, Zcash’s price surged over the past two months, tied to discussions around quantum resistance. Zcash is seen as having an edge over Bitcoin in defending against quantum threats, attracting significant capital, signaling rising market concern over this risk.
From my view, quantum computing and privacy are important topics, but within the Bitcoin developer community, divisions may be exaggerating the threat. While we can’t accurately assess quantum computing’s near-term danger to Bitcoin, we can evaluate the health of the developer community. Are developers united? Can they collaborate with supporters? These factors affect Bitcoin’s technical evolution and market confidence. Currently, however, the developer community is not in good shape—many early investors are disappointed by internal divisions.
Perhaps we can use social intelligence tools to monitor developers’ willingness to solve technical issues and track sentiment shifts, like fear and greed indices. But currently, such sentiment appears at historical lows. Talk to those who lived through the 2017 block size debate, and they’ll see parallels with today’s situation—a potential split. If a soft fork or hard fork does occur, market tension will rise before it happens, as most investors won’t want to take extra risks amid such uncertainty.
Anthony:
If a fork actually happens, can you imagine how large financial institutions would react? They might ask, “Wait, Bitcoin is forking? Will I get two coins? Should I hold, sell, or hedge?” This scenario sounds both worrying and exciting.
Jeff:
I’m actually somewhat excited too. This could be an opportunity for firms like Bitwise to differentiate themselves from traditional giants like BlackRock. We know crypto is an active technological asset requiring specialized management. We may adopt different strategies for clients with varying risk appetites. I recall the 2017 block size debate—Coinbase chose not to support Bitcoin Cash, while Kraken did. As a result, many users migrated from Coinbase to Kraken, showing how institutional decisions can directly shape user choices.
Original link: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ontfayNLnLE
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
深潮TechFlow
