Interview with “Crypto Patriarch” Michael Terpin: $42,000 May Be the Final Bottom; One Bitcoin Remains a Ticket to Upward Mobility
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Interview with “Crypto Patriarch” Michael Terpin: $42,000 May Be the Final Bottom; One Bitcoin Remains a Ticket to Upward Mobility
For ordinary people, owning just one bitcoin is sufficient.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsCompiled & Translated by TechFlow
Guest: Michael Terpin
Host: Bonnie
Podcast Source: Bonnie Blockchain
Original Title: Critical! The “Godfather of Cryptocurrency”: Whales Are About to Rally Here for a Bottom! Michael Terpin [Bonnie Blockchain]
Air Date: March 21, 2026
Key Takeaways
Michael Terpin—widely hailed as the “Godfather of Cryptocurrency”—delivers Bitcoin’s most brutal bear-market forecast, as Bitcoin reverts to its “mathematical destiny.” Terpin reveals how institutions artificially accelerated chart patterns using the “10/10 tariff” tweet. Facing the ultimate $42,000 support level, Terpin urges investors to abandon blind optimism and wait for capitulation-style liquidation—the “winter” of the cycle. For young people, accumulating one full BTC remains the sole reliable path to transcend fiat depreciation and achieve intergenerational wealth transfer.
Key Insights Summary
The Mathematical Logic Behind Bitcoin’s “46-Month Cycle”
- Historically, Bitcoin’s core four-year cycle pattern still holds. In reality, the so-called “four-year cycle” is not strictly four years—but closer to 46 months.
- Satoshi Nakamoto designed Bitcoin to produce one block every 10 minutes on average. However, actual block times fluctuate due to changes in network hash rate and mining difficulty… causing halving events to be “accelerated.”
The Inside Story of the “10/10 Sell-Off” as Market Manipulation
- This sell-off was no accident—it was an organized operation. Between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, sustained sell orders flooded the market—a clear sign of coordination, wholly distinct from retail panic selling.
- Rumors suggest Morgan Stanley issued internal memos to brokers minutes before the tweet, advising them to “sell Bitcoin and MicroStrategy stock.” This event also triggered market makers’ “auto-deleveraging.”
Bloody Forecast for This Bear Market’s Bottom
- I don’t believe a 6-week bear market is plausible—nor do I think it will end in just four months. That would disrupt the rhythm of future cycles.
- I don’t expect price to fall below $42,000. My projected drawdown may be “milder,” but it will certainly exceed 50%.
- When Bitcoin falls into the $50,000–$40,000 range, mainstream media will inevitably publish headlines declaring “Bitcoin Is Dead”—and that’s often the best time to buy.
Bitcoin’s “Four Seasons Theory” and Timing Entry/Exit Points
- Bitcoin’s “autumn” begins the day the market bubble bursts; Bitcoin’s “winter” officially starts the day of “capitulation”—i.e., when price hits bottom.
- The optimal buying opportunity in each Bitcoin cycle is “winter.” The best selling opportunity is at the tail end of “summer”—specifically, within 20% of the peak price.
Practical Dollar-Cost Averaging (DCA) Advice
- DCA is generally an effective investment strategy—but it fails during prolonged downtrends. When markets keep falling, DCA continuously lowers your average entry price, potentially amplifying losses.
- A more rational use of DCA is to begin purchasing only after the market has confirmed a bottom—and continue buying through the early uptrend phase.
The Next Halving (2028) and the Super Cycle
- The 2024 halving price was $63,900. I believe the next halving price will at least double—and could approach $200,000. We’ll witness for the second time Bitcoin hitting a new all-time high *before* the next halving.
- The “super cycle” refers to the current “diminishing returns” phenomenon observed across Bitcoin cycles—potentially replaced by the S-curve of technology adoption.
Intergenerational Wealth Goals for Young People
- For ordinary individuals, securing one full BTC is sufficient.
- If you hold one BTC and plan to retire in 40 years, I find it nearly impossible to imagine its value falling below $10 million. One BTC can therefore serve as intergenerational wealth.
Bitcoin Cycle Update
Bonnie: Welcome Michael Terpin! You’re Founder & CEO of Transform Ventures and Co-Founder of Bit Angels. Your book The Bitcoin Super Cycle is also a bestseller—we’ll dive deeper into it shortly.
You predicted over a year ago in your book that the market bubble would eventually burst—and indeed, that prediction has now been validated.
Michael Terpin:
Last year, there was intense debate about whether Bitcoin’s “four-year cycle” had ended. Prominent figures—including Raoul Pal, Arthur Hayes, and ETF executives—argued: “From now on, Bitcoin will only rise—no major crashes remain; institutional inflows will dominate; cyclical volatility may vanish—or extend to five years.” But facts proved them wrong.
To date, Bitcoin’s core four-year cycle characteristics still hold. Historically, each cycle ends with bubble collapse in Q4 post-halving. Yet due to halvings arriving earlier, the next collapse may shift to late Q3.
In fact, the “four-year cycle” isn’t rigidly four years—it’s closer to 46 months. Otherwise, halvings would always land on January 3—the anniversary of Bitcoin’s genesis block. In reality, the first halving occurred 47 months after the genesis block.
Moreover, China’s 2016 Bitcoin mining restrictions significantly impacted halving timing. Policy crackdowns forced many miners to relocate—e.g., to Texas, USA—altering network block production speed. The halving thus moved forward from November to July. That cycle lasted ~44 months; subsequent ones spanned 46 months (halving in May) and 47 months (halving in April). Following this trend, we project the 2028 halving in March—yielding a ~47-month cycle, possibly extending to 48 months.
Bonnie: Could you elaborate further on how China’s 2016 mining ban affected Bitcoin?
Michael Terpin:
Absolutely. The 2016 mining ban impacted the Bitcoin network more profoundly than the recent one. At the time, many miners rushed to build new operations elsewhere—most ultimately settled in Texas, USA.
As noted in my book’s “Mining” chapter, Bitcoin wasn’t designed around a fixed four-year schedule—but rather, a halving every 210,000 blocks.
There will be 33 such halvings total, gradually distributing all Bitcoins. Satoshi’s design target was an average 10-minute block interval. Yet actual block times vary with network hash rate and mining difficulty. If hash rate drops suddenly, block speed temporarily accelerates—causing the 210,000th block to arrive sooner, thereby “accelerating” the halving.
This Bitcoin Sell-Off Was Intentional
Bonnie: On February 10, you posted that a “legendary AI trader” with 50+ years of market experience believes this Bitcoin sell-off wasn’t accidental—but orchestrated.
Michael Terpin:
Correct. You’re referring to Peter Brandt—a highly respected traditional finance (TradFi) investor and trader who frequently shares incisive views on crypto markets. Recently, much discussion has centered on “institutional onboarding” and its market impact.
One key change is that trading has grown increasingly “structured.” Take this sell-off: After the black-swan “10/10” event (October 10), the market formed a death cross—and a major market maker was widely suspected as the orchestrator. Though unconfirmed, this was clearly a large-scale, planned sell-off.
For example, if you observed continuous sell orders between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, that signals deliberate coordination—not random retail panic. This pattern is unmistakable. A hallmark of institutional trading is concentrated activity during standard “9-to-5” hours—not the erratic, round-the-clock behavior of past cycles. This shift has deeply reshaped market dynamics.
Another notable shift: In the last bear market, large-scale on-chain sell-offs were rare. Today, with institutional participation, derivatives’ influence has intensified dramatically.
Bonnie: So institutions sell first—and then retail follows?
Michael Terpin:
Precisely. Retail investors typically base decisions on charts—because everyone watches charts. And the 10/10 event artificially accelerated chart patterns.
Truthfully, I’d long expected this cycle to end in Q4—but couldn’t pinpoint the exact month. Several models exist: Some pointed to October; others to December. Intriguingly, one model has proven accurate for three consecutive cycles—measuring 35 months from bottom to top. This pattern has held three times.
Bonnie: What if the 10/10 event hadn’t occurred?
Michael Terpin:
Without 10/10, we’d have been testing $125,000 resistance. Since Inauguration Day, we’d failed repeatedly to break $120,000. By summer, the “Liberation Day” event drove price down to $75,000. I even tweeted then: “This is the bottom—price won’t go lower before cycle’s end.” But the cycle didn’t end.
“Bitcoin Summer”—the period from this cycle’s first all-time high to final bubble burst—typically lasts 9–11 months. If it ends far earlier, it violates historical precedent.
Similarly, when price fell to $80,000 post-10/10 and rebounded sharply, many declared the bear market over. Yet I thought: “Just six weeks? Impossible.”
Honestly, I felt disappointed—mainly because price didn’t reach my predicted median range. My forecast was: ~3x halving price, adjusted slightly for macro factors—but actual performance fell short.
How Low Will Bitcoin Go This Time?
Bonnie: Bitcoin’s bear-market drawdowns have consistently shrunk: 94%, then 87%, 84%, 77%. Should we expect ~65–70% this time?
Michael Terpin:
If the top is confirmed, yes—that’s what I’d forecast. Because price underperformed expectations—doubling instead of tripling—I anticipate a “milder” drawdown, though still >50%.
Bonnie: Actually, we’ve already hit that zone—from $126K down to $60K, then rebounded. Many now claim: “Bear market’s over.”
Michael Terpin:
I see no data supporting that conclusion. Historically, true bottoms take ~one year from peak. Past three bear markets confirm this: The prior bear market lasted one year minus three days; the one before that, just over one year; the earliest halving cycle, roughly one year.
As stated, a 6-week or 4-month bear market defies logic—and would distort future cycle rhythms.
Especially if the bottom-to-top cycle runs ~35 months, ending the bear too early would compress the bull phase. Markets might compensate by shortening the bull’s mid-phase (“spring”).
Bonnie: You said “one year”—does that mean peak-to-trough?
Michael Terpin:
Yes—peak to trough, approximately one year. It’s among Bitcoin’s most stable cyclical patterns.
Michael Terpin:
I advise watching charts first. We haven’t yet seen truly “major negative catalysts.” Historically, bear markets amplify bad news while ignoring good news—whereas bulls dismiss bad news and amplify good news.
In the last bear market, Terra/Luna’s collapse triggered the first sharp drop. Bitcoin was still ~$60K, entering consolidation with a “dead cat bounce.” By Q1-end, price hovered near $50K—five months post-halving—many assumed the bull continued. Terra/Luna shattered that illusion, sending price below $40K.
Then FTX collapsed—marking the true bottom. Price breached Bitcoin’s typical 200-week EMA—and nearly touched the 300-week EMA. Though some tweeted “I’ve placed buy orders at $5K or $2K,” I knew price wouldn’t fall that low. Indeed, that was the bottom.
How did I confirm it? Even after Genesis Lending’s bankruptcy post-FTX, Bitcoin didn’t decline further—indicating no sellers remained. Those holding through Terra/Luna, Celsius, and FTX became “HODLers,” unwilling to dump cheaply. Once short-term panic cleared, price stabilized—and whales began “bottom fishing.”
Some whales privately told me: “I’m preparing my largest-ever Bitcoin purchase.” Sure enough, price surged thereafter.
Bonnie: Will you announce the bottom on Twitter?
Michael Terpin:
Yes—I’ll publicly declare it on Twitter once confirmed.
Most Likely Black Swan Event
Bonnie: Looking back, was 10/10 the first bad news of this bear market?
Michael Terpin:
Yes—10/10 qualifies as a “black swan”: Trump’s tweet was utterly unforeseen; Binance’s market maker deleveraging was unexpected; and the speed of the crash stunned everyone. Crypto remains small and fragile—just one major market maker placing massive sell orders for five days can crush price, rendering bids irrelevant. Ten days of such selling could drive price to ~$50K.
Still, I expect a rebound—market makers can’t hold infinite Bitcoin. To protect collateral and other assets, they’ll eventually exhaust their supply.
Bonnie: Earlier, we discussed 65–70% drawdowns. I calculated that implies $44K–$38K.
Michael Terpin:
Correct—I don’t foresee price falling below $42K. This top is far lower than the prior cycle’s. Last time, price barely exceeded the prior ATH—yet drawdown still reached 75%.
Yesterday (though this episode may air later), BlockFills—a major TradFi player deeply involved in Bitcoin options—announced withdrawal suspensions amid liquidity issues. A friend works there; weeks ago, we chatted—no red flags surfaced. Yet in crypto history, “withdrawal suspension” announcements usually precede bankruptcy. I’m not claiming BlockFills will fail—but last year, it traded $61B.
If it can’t close its funding gap, it may inflict “collateral damage”—a potential FTX-style collapse.
Last bear market’s bad news clustered in Bitcoin lending—especially institutions lending BTC to FTX, triggering cascading failures. This bear may bring similar bankruptcies. E.g., if price hits $45K and derivatives exchanges risk customer or proprietary capital—common among centralized firms—panic withdrawals could follow. This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy: More withdrawals → tighter liquidity → platform withdrawal limits → further price decline → eventual bottom.
Interestingly, bottoms almost always emerge late in bear markets—typically Q3 of the “post-halving year.” I believe bankruptcies don’t cause bottoms—they’re symptoms of the cycle itself. The bear triggers bankruptcies, which deepen the downturn—ultimately revealing the real bottom.
Bonnie: If institutions know this cycle exists, why don’t they prepare?
Michael Terpin:
Because they deny the cycle exists. Many now say “the cycle is dead.” I’ll speak on this today. E.g., Matt at Bitwise ETF insists: “Cycles are irrelevant—Bitcoin only rises; it’s now an institutional asset, stable like gold, silver, or equities.” I believe more people claim “cycles are dead” than affirm “cycles still dominate.” I feel like shouting alone in the wilderness: “Just look at the math—the cycle still governs price action.”
Bonnie: But if everyone says cycles are dead—and institutions control the big money—can’t they dictate supply/demand?
Michael Terpin:
Institutional capital hasn’t reached “maximum” scale yet. Though holdings are large, whales hold more BTC. Institutions are still “testing waters”—rarely buying spot BTC directly, preferring derivatives like ETFs. ETFs offer better margin terms than direct BTC purchases.
Per recent data, ~20% of Bitcoin volume comes from derivatives; 80% from spot. Traditional finance is the inverse: ~80% derivatives.
Bonnie: So institutions mostly buy via derivatives—not direct spot BTC—except outliers like Michael Saylor?
Michael Terpin:
Right—or a hybrid: ETFs, controlled and operated by institutions, are overwhelmingly bought by retail.
Institutions tell “new retail”: “Buying Bitcoin is safe now.” Critics who once called it a “Ponzi scheme” at $100/$1,000 now promote it for commissions—advising 1–5% portfolio allocation.
ETF mechanics: They trade only during market hours and settle next-day. Institutions control this capital and hedge positions. Just from fees, IBIT (Bitcoin ETF) is now one of BlackRock’s most profitable businesses.
Prerequisites for Dollar-Cost Averaging Bitcoin
Michael Terpin:
Dollar-Cost Averaging (DCA) is typically effective—but fails during downtrends. As prices fall, DCA continuously lowers your average cost—potentially magnifying losses.
If you have steady monthly disposable income, a better DCA approach is: Begin buying at the market bottom—and continue until price enters an uptrend. Accelerate purchases during the strongest uptrend phase.
Conversely, during downtrends, hold cash or low-risk assets—e.g., interest-bearing accounts or gold. In “tax-sensitive” regions like the U.S., STRC (Structured Return of Capital)—used by Michael Saylor—is an attractive “cash-like” option. Designed for “return of capital,” it yields ~11.25% annually—recently raised by Saylor. That’s nearly triple T-Bill money market yields.
If you buy this instrument, ex-dividend dates fall around Fridays. Its price typically rises slightly pre-ex-date—and falls when Bitcoin drops. Last week, I missed a buy opportunity by failing to place orders early. Price dipped to ~$94—offering great entry value. In effect, you buy cheaper *and* gain ~5% effective yield space—assuming face/target price is $100.
This structure is brilliantly engineered. Critics claiming “Saylor will bankrupt if Bitcoin hits X” misunderstand his financing strategy. These instruments are stocks/securities—they can suspend dividends or amend terms. As long as he pays high dividends while retaining sufficient cash, financial distress is unlikely.
Even if Bitcoin hits $20K, he’ll keep buying—based on his core thesis: 21% annual BTC growth over 20 years vs. ~10% financing costs. Mathematically, this is sound.
Bitcoin’s Four Seasons Theory
Bonnie: I recall your “Four Seasons Theory.” Could you re-explain for listeners who missed last episode?
Michael Terpin:
Absolutely. Satoshi’s whitepaper states: “Price must rise whenever new annual demand exceeds new annual mining supply.” This reflects basic supply-demand economics—and has held true so far.
First halving: $12.70; second: $670; third: $8,700; fourth: $63,900. Each halving triggered massive price surges.
Bonnie: And as long as new buying demand exceeds new mining output, price keeps rising. Mining output is now minimal. Bitcoin’s annual inflation is ~0.8%—lower than gold’s ~1.5%. Gold’s inflation may even rise—higher gold prices incentivize more mining investment. Mines unprofitable at $2,000/oz become viable at $5,000/oz.
Michael Terpin:
Exactly—this is Satoshi’s whitepaper insight, proven correct. While Bitcoin’s volatility scares off some retail investors, understanding its drivers reveals immense opportunity. Volatility stems from fear and greed.
Since 2015, I’ve observed a recurring pattern—identical in sequence, driven by fear/greed. I call it Bitcoin’s “Four Seasons Theory.”
Bitcoin’s “spring” begins on halving day. Miners instantly lose half revenue—profit margins swing from +10–20% to -30–40% loss. Early on, many shut down rigs. Today, miners access bank loans or corporate backing—but still upgrade equipment during halving’s initial unprofitable phase.
To maintain network stability, Bitcoin’s algorithm adjusts mining difficulty based on hash rate. Reduced participation lowers difficulty—ensuring ~10-min blocks. Falling difficulty plus rising demand slowly lifts price—but “spring” is typically sideways.
Last “spring” lasted seven months—the longest ever. Previously, “spring” was shortest—e.g., four months post-first halving. “Spring” spans halving to new ATH. In April 2024, halving occurred at $63,900. Six months later, price hovered near $64,000—little change. Brief dips occurred (e.g., German sell-offs, yen carry trades); brief rallies hit strong $70K resistance.
One month pre-halving, Bitcoin briefly hit $73,850—sparking debate. Commentators claimed this broke cycle theory—traditionally, new ATHs occur ~1 year post-halving, not pre-halving.
In my book, I addressed this: It doesn’t break cycles—it resets the “summer” entry threshold. Pre-event, $68K sufficed; now, $73,850 is required.
I also predicted: If Trump won the U.S. election, macro conditions would favor BTC—breaking $73,850 in early November. Even without victory, December’s end would likely suffice. Trump won—and Bitcoin hit ATH on Election Day (November 5).
I predicted BTC might breach $100K in early-mid December. We achieved it—and rallied until Inauguration Day’s “sell the news,” nearing $120K. Then consolidation began—dipping to $75K, rebounding to $126K—repeating through year-end. We never broke $125K resistance—likely due to tariff policy uncertainty.
Bonnie: So where are we now?
Michael Terpin:
We’re in “autumn.”
Bonnie: Can you forecast the next four years?
Michael Terpin:
First, let me complete the “Four Seasons Theory.” Bitcoin’s “autumn” begins the day the bubble bursts; “winter” begins the day of “capitulation”—i.e., when price hits bottom.
Many use “crypto winter” loosely for low sentiment/price drops. But in my definition, “Bitcoin winter” is the optimal buying window—when short-term speculators exit, panic peaks, and price finds its floor before gradual recovery.
Long-term, the best buy point in each cycle is “winter.” Best sell point is late “summer”—within 20% of the peak. Some catch tops precisely—but it’s extremely difficult. Ideal strategy: Sell near highs, buy near lows. Bottoms take time—markets stagnate; many declare “Bitcoin is dead.”
We’re already seeing “Bitcoin is dead” headlines. Last weekend, the Financial Times reported BTC at $60K—adding “still $60K too high.” Later, BTC rebounded to $70K, forcing headline revisions. Meanwhile, Peter Schiff and Nouriel Roubini loudly proclaim zero-price outcomes.
When BTC hits $50K–$40K, mainstream outlets like CNBC/CNN will run “Bitcoin is dead” stories—and that’s often the best buy time. Short-term, “Bitcoin summer’s” first day is an excellent entry—prices surge rapidly.
So revisiting DCA: Better to allocate part of funds at “summer’s” start—and another part at “winter’s” start. If you won’t HODL, returns depend on correctly identifying “autumn’s” top/bottom.
Reiterating my analysis: If you bought 1,000 BTC at $12,700 during the first halving—and held till today ($67,000?)—you’d turn $12,700 into $67M. That dwarfs all other asset classes. Selling near $100K could yield $120M—10,000x return.
Of course, first-cycle timing is hardest. Selling 1,000 BTC near $1,000 top—and buying back at ~$250 bottom—leaves you with 4,000 BTC. Four years later, similar tactics could yield 16,000 BTC. Another four years? Not exactly 64,000—but perhaps ~60,000. As markets mature, precise 4x timing may fade—but two more cycles could still deliver ~2x gains, especially if the “super cycle” ignites.
The “super cycle” replaces current “diminishing returns” with the S-curve of technology adoption. Only ~4% of people globally own Bitcoin—yet 95% of supply is already mined. When 20–30% own ≥1 BTC, where will those coins come from? Not miners.
Where Is the Best Buy Point?
Bonnie: We’ve discussed possible lows. What about highs?
Michael Terpin:
I believe the next cycle offers our first real shot at a “super cycle.” Technically, this cycle could qualify—but it’s institutions’ debut. They’re now able to do something unprecedented: provide massive liquidity to whales wanting to sell BTC.
Imagine you’re a whale: You held a 9-to-5 job, mined BTC at $0.02, and still hold 10,000 BTC. Maybe you took BTC-backed loans as value rose—bought a modest house.
Suddenly, Galaxy Digital calls: “Hey, Michael Saylor wants unlimited BTC. Will you sell at $120?” Your spouse says: “Honey, that’s ~$1.05B. Sell half? You can buy back later.”
This isn’t whales exiting Bitcoin entirely. A TradFi expert called this Bitcoin’s “IPO moment”—early “founders” selling.
They’re not fully cashing out. Like Facebook founders, they may not repurchase shares—but benefit via new equity distributions. Yet on-chain data shows whales *do* buy back after selling—selling high, buying low—the very strategy I recommend.
E.g., a whale wallet holding ~15,000 BTC transferred some to Kraken—then vanished. If sold, they’ll buy back low. Imagine selling $1B worth—then rebuying at half-price: You regain the same BTC *plus* $500M cash—for private jets, etc.
Bonnie: Why not just use BTC as collateral for loans?
Michael Terpin:
You can—but selling high/buying low yields higher absolute returns. Tax implications matter: Puerto Rico has 0% capital gains tax; Hong Kong, Singapore, Dubai offer similar advantages for wealthy residents. Not using this strategy wastes profit opportunities.
I’ve spoken with U.S. Bitcoin miners—they say they no longer meaningfully control supply, as block rewards shrink. Truth is, they never fully controlled it. Daily output dropped from 7,200 BTC to 3.125 BTC per 10 minutes—450 BTC/day.
Last year, Michael Saylor bought ~20,000 BTC in one month—roughly one year’s supply. Even if not exact, it’s enormous. 450 BTC × 365 = annual supply. Institutional buying now vastly exceeds miner output.
That’s why some claim “cycles are dead”—they think miner output is trivial. But output isn’t trivial—it’s about the *ratio* of buying to output. With no buyers, output seems small; with massive buying, price rises.
Satoshi’s theory still holds: Within a four-year cycle, if buying exceeds mining output, price rises—and keeps rising.
I predict with near certainty: 2028’s halving price will exceed 2024’s $63,900. I expect at least doubling—possibly nearing $200,000. I publicly affirm: We’ll see Bitcoin hit a new ATH *before* the next halving—for the second time.
The next halving occurs 210,000 blocks post-prior halving—likely early April or mid-March. Timing depends on mining speed. If mid-March, I expect new ATH in 2027—not 2026.
Bonnie: How might elections affect this?
Michael Terpin:
Elections are part of the macro environment, right? Interestingly, I doubt Satoshi chose U.S. election years for halvings randomly. Every halving so far coincides with U.S. presidential elections: 2012, 2016, 2020, 2024—and next, 2028.
Looking ahead, even shifting each halving one month earlier would break this pattern in 3–4 cycles—e.g., moving to early February, before primaries begin. We’ll observe how timing shifts impact markets.
Typically, Bitcoin bear markets align with midterm elections. Sadly, crypto support has grown more partisan. It was once bipartisan—but now leans heavily toward one party.
“Stand With Crypto” performed exceptionally in the last election—crypto became the largest political donor, surpassing combined contributions from big banks and pharma—a feat unimaginable four years ago. Yet most donations flowed to pro-crypto candidates, while Kamala Harris’s stance remains ambiguous—framing crypto through identity politics, not economic benefits.
Now, Democrats’ midterm strategy targets Trump—claiming he profits from crypto assets and his family exploits this emerging class. They’ve even stated: Unless Trump first addresses his family’s crypto holdings, they’ll reject any vote on the Clarity Act. In effect, they weaponize the Clarity Act for electoral gain.
Currently, consensus gives Democrats a 75–80% chance of winning midterms. If they win, U.S. crypto legislation likely stalls for two years—since the House initiates bills, and Democrats may block pro-crypto laws—or push hostile policies.
A “compromise act” proposal—drafted by bank lobbying groups—would: Declare DeFi illegal, restricting activity to broker-dealers; ban self-custody for retail, mandating custody at traditional financial institutions; prohibit stablecoins from offering interest/rewards to avoid threatening banking.
This bill is worse than current status quo—explaining why Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong stated: “I cannot support this bill.” He argues it’s worse than having no new legislation.
Thus, U.S. crypto supporters and voters must actively participate—supporting pro-crypto candidates regardless of local races. Press your “red button”—now the “orange button.”
Bitcoin Super Cycle (Peak in 2028)
Bonnie: We discussed the next high. Could you break it into bull case, bear case, and base case?
Michael Terpin:
Absolutely. Bull/bear/base cases hinge on whether a “supply shock” emerges in 2029—the bull market’s timing node, i.e., Year 2 post-halving. A supply shock means “literally no Bitcoin left to sell.”
The only major historical supply shock occurred in October 2013. Reports abounded—I confirmed it myself: You simply couldn’t buy BTC. Large purchases were impossible—exchanges like Coinbase lacked inventory, citing “system outages” or “temporary stockouts.” Rumor held they had zero BTC to sell. Demand vastly exceeded supply.
Similar scenarios may recur. Exchange BTC inventories are historically low—especially during bulls.
Bonnie: My halving price range: Worst-case $120K, best-case $200K. Observing historical “diminishing returns”—first bull: 100x; next: 30x; then: 10x (actual: 8x); then: 3x (actual: 2x). Next step may be +30–50% above halving price—so pessimistic: $180K; optimistic: $400K—excluding super-cycle effects. Can you share timelines?
Michael Terpin:
Timelines follow the “Four Seasons Cycle.” “Spring” begins ~March 2028. “Summer” typically lasts 4–7 months—recent cycles suggest extension. Thus, new ATH may emerge October/November 2028—Q3/Q4 end.
We’ll likely hit new ATH *before* halving—even the day before counts as record-breaking.
Halving pushes price toward “fair market price.” Last halving saw $73K—later reverting toward fair value. If next fair price is $150K, a $180K post-halving peak may correct to $150K. Doubling $150K = $300K; +50% = $225K.
“Super cycle effects” manifest in “summer.” As price nears prior ATH—e.g., halving price $150K, prior ATH $170K—BTC may hit $170K by May/June 2028.
Afterward, 9–11 months typically pass before bubble burst. Bottom formation and the 35-month cycle pattern both factor in. Each cycle has two mutually exclusive outcomes—data will reveal the likeliest.
“Summer” often brings bubble bursts and retail FOMO: “BTC to $1M—buy now!” Yet price may only hit $400K—then crash to $200K. Retail buys high, sells low.
Supply shocks mirror October 2013: No BTC available. Buyers seek whales—but whales raise prices, refusing cheap sales. This may trigger “god candles”—rapid spikes. E.g., BTC jumps $300K→$400K in one week—drawing retail FOMO and fueling further rallies.
Super cycle’s core: “Once price hits highs, reversal is hard.” If BTC reaches $480K this cycle, $1M next cycle feels realistic; if only $200K, the narrative shifts.
If you’ve heard the viral FUD story—cited as partly causing the $60K rally—it claims Jeffrey Epstein bought Coinbase stock, then was dubbed Satoshi Nakamoto.
He donated $500K to MIT—partly funding MIT’s Digital Currency Lab, which paid Gavin Andresen. But that doesn’t make Epstein Satoshi—these events occurred 5–6 years *after* Bitcoin’s birth.
Recent filings suggest Epstein encountered Bitcoin only in 2011–2012. How could he be Satoshi—discovered years after the whitepaper—with zero evidence? I’m certain short-sellers seeded this rumor—calling media: “Hey, Epstein *is* Satoshi!”
Bonnie: I haven’t asked this in ages—but why doesn’t anyone ask *who* Satoshi is? Him? Her? Them?
Michael Terpin:
We’ve asked constantly—yet no answer. I want to know too. Frankly, I’m relieved I don’t. If revealed, Satoshi could face baseless arrest—U.S. government might claim: “You created a money-laundering tool—Congressional hearings needed.” So, lack of proof is protective.
E.g., Craig Wright claimed to be Satoshi—but isn’t a U.S. citizen, limiting U.S. prosecution. Still, courts rejected his claim. This doesn’t negate his early role—some evidence suggests he mined early BTC and may have been part of the “Satoshi team.”
Interestingly, Martti Malmi recently published emails with Satoshi. Then 19, Malmi emailed Satoshi after reading the whitepaper: “Hi, I’m a college student. Can I help? Build a website?” Satoshi accepted—he helped create bitcoin.org and Bitcoin Talk—paid in BTC.
Satoshi added: “Your first task: Turn on your computer and start mining—so at least two people mine at all times.” If not deliberately misleading, this implies Satoshi was one person.
Satoshi’s writing is stylistically consistent—supporting singularity. Yet identity remains unsolved. Some suspect Adam Back; an HBO doc even named Peter Todd—but that’s absurd. The doc cited one quote, misquoted it, and referenced pre-community events—nonsense.
Bonnie: I suspect your Bitcoin investment is substantial. I’ve spoken with institutions—they hesitate to invest more, fearing quantum computing risks or “who is Satoshi?” Yet you seem unconcerned?
Michael Terpin:
I consider quantum risk extremely low—for several reasons.
First, current quantum computing limitations. Today’s most advanced quantum computers have ~100 qubits. Research indicates cracking a Bitcoin address requires ~20,000 qubits—massive gap.
Why not attack banks? Centralized systems yield more loot—funds can be drained directly. Attack JPMorgan—not Satoshi.
If North Korea sought quantum BTC cracking, where would hardware come from? Quantum computing needs cutting-edge hardware—strictly export-controlled. Only Google/IBM can build it—and I doubt they’ll misuse tech to steal BTC.
Second, we have ample time to respond.
Quantum breakthroughs won’t happen soon. At current pace, 5–20 years may pass before quantum computers crack BTC wallets. Midpoint: 10 years—plenty of time to develop defenses. Teams already research quantum-safe wallets and forks.
If quantum-safe forks emerge, lost-private-key wallets may become vulnerable—re-entering circulation.
But this isn’t apocalyptic. Bitcoin’s theoretical cap is 21M—but only ~16M are usable; rest is lost. Reintroducing lost BTC brings supply closer to theoretical max.
Bonnie: Don’t you think this is worst-case?
Michael Terpin:
No—I see opportunity. If someone cracks Satoshi’s wallet and dumps BTC at $50—I’d buy more. Risk is absorbed; price likely rebounds.
Quantum risk probability is minuscule. Even if realized, it’s a temporary blip—not undermining BTC’s long-term value.
Investors either trade themselves or hire fund managers. Our fund is algo-driven. Though I’m CIO, I lead a dedicated algo development/trading team. We deploy strategies—e.g., acting on >5% moves or key resistance breaks.
For broader trends, our goal is buying lows and selling highs.
I trust the crypto industry will solve quantum threats—especially for Satoshi’s wallet. Again, quantum-capable firms like Google/IBM won’t abuse tech. North Korea lacks technical capability and access to tightly controlled hardware.
If quantum attacks *do* occur, attackers will target banks first. If JPMorgan/BoA accounts drain billions, the Fed may bail out—further destabilizing global finance.
So I’m not worried about quantum risk. If BTC crashes to $50 due to it—I’ll buy more.
Bitcoin, AI, Precious Metals? Who’s the New Darling?
Bonnie: Do you still view Bitcoin as a nascent asset class? Will people stay interested? AI looks hot now, right?
Michael Terpin:
AI isn’t an asset class—it’s a technology. Asset classes include AI company equities—a subset of stocks.
AI is indeed the hottest emerging tech—but its cycle differs entirely from Bitcoin’s. I hear AI fears—some think it may spark the next global crisis. Many feel this dread.
Yet markets feel like a “happy playground”—all assets hit ATHs. I’ve invested in AI projects—though crypto remains primary, alongside real estate.
Interestingly, a friend joined Anthropic’s Series C/D round—valuation ~$400M. He invited me—I asked: “Do they have revenue?” Minimal. “Profitable—or burning cash?” Burning. So I declined—$400M felt excessive for seed investors.
Bonnie: That’d be 1,000x! Their latest valuation reportedly exceeds $400B.
Michael Terpin:
That number is insane. Now we ask: Can this growth sustain? Can these firms become trillion-dollar entities?
A clear market problem: AI’s recent explosive returns drive retail to ask: “Why buy Bitcoin—why not AI?”
Bonnie: True. Another hot asset is precious metals. Problem: Retail chases highs—and gets burned. They lever up gold at $5,500/oz—then get crushed on pullbacks.
Michael Terpin:
Gold/silver remain attractive. My book cites CME’s “super cycle” definition: A fundamental commodity shift lasting ≥5 years. CME notes only two such cycles in 100 years.
First: 1970s—Nixon ended gold standard; Americans regained gold-buying rights after 40 years. Suddenly, gold investing was novel—new buyers emerged. Gold quadrupled in <10 years.
Second: 1990s—China’s industrial boom drove massive commodity buying—nickel/copper spiked. Gold/silver rose less—but commodities broadly surged.
CME notes: Though COVID-era conclusions were premature, we may enter a third super cycle—driven by global fiat debt expansion and “monetary debasement trade” concerns.
If I’d read my own book more carefully, I’d have bought more gold at publication. Clearly, gold was stellar in 2024. Last year (2025), “monetary debasement trade” discussions listed Bitcoin as worthy—but other assets outperformed, disappointing many.
Why? They ignored Bitcoin’s cycle—right? Don’t buy at cycle tops—buy at bottoms. A classic comic from last cycle: Two tables—one reads “Bitcoin for sale: $60K,” lines snaking; another reads “Bitcoin on sale: $15K,” empty.
Why? Fear and greed. Recent $60K price triggered fear indices exceeding FTX-collapse levels. Remember: Four years ago, $60K symbolized bull euphoria—“BTC to the moon!”
Today, expectations are sky-high—so $60K sparks panic.
A wise saying: “If in doubt, zoom out.” Long-term, buying Bitcoin at *any* time and holding 5 years yields only 1% loss probability. Even in that 1%, no need to sell at a loss. Focusing on bear-market buys makes Bitcoin more reliable.
U.S. Politics and Insider Dynamics
Michael Terpin:
In Bitcoin’s first two halving cycles, price gains aligned with “theoretical” values: ~100x, then ~30x. For the 2020–2021 bull, I predicted ~10x—with macro adjustments. Yet macro conditions were hostile: Biden’s administration showed crypto hostility—Gary Gensler/Elizabeth Warren’s regulatory stances heightened tension. Rapid rate hikes also crushed “risk-on” sentiment.
Under Trump, hopes rose for the Clarity Act. In contrast, the Genius Act had limited impact—it mattered, but didn’t empower institutions to recommend digital assets (especially BTC) to clients. Yet the Clarity Act failed passage. Now it’s a midterm “political football”—unlikely to pass unless Senate votes 51–49.
Against this backdrop, Trump’s frequent tariff-tweeting caused wild market swings—explaining traditional markets’ “Liberation Day” crash. Traditional markets recovered faster—S&P 500 hit ATHs. As a nascent asset, crypto reacts more sharply to news—hence greater volatility.
That 10/10 tweet threatened 100% tariffs on Chinese goods. Though many knew Trump’s statements were negotiation tactics, the tweet triggered outsized reactions. Analyses suggest it felt “contrived”—market reaction was too swift, as if pre-known.
E.g., rumors claim Morgan Stanley issued internal memos minutes before the tweet—advising brokers to “sell Bitcoin and MicroStrategy stock.” Media reported this. Binance also saw abnormal trading—whether proprietary or whale accounts, massive sell-offs began instantly. Widely reported—and factually consistent.
Also notable: This sell-off involved market makers’ “auto-deleveraging.” Typically, market makers hold offsetting long/short positions—but here, they turned “naked longs” (unhedged)—unprecedented.
Why the Clarity Act Matters for Bitcoin
Bonnie: You mentioned DeFi/stablecoins. Why does the Clarity Act matter for Bitcoin too?
Michael Terpin:
The Clarity Act aims to provide clear regulatory frameworks for the *entire* crypto industry—not just stablecoins. Its core purpose is defining rules—clarifying legality.
E.g., under prior U.S. administration, SEC Chair Gary Gensler stated Ethereum is a security. Though unofficial, this sparked broad concern. David Sacks categorized crypto assets as commodities, securities, or collectibles (e.g., Trump coin/meme coins—unregulated). Gensler’s stance: All cryptos except Bitcoin are securities.
This ambiguity caused chaos. Morgan Stanley manages trillions—yet can’t advise clients on ETH due to legal risks for non-accredited investors. Thus, the Clarity Act eliminates uncertainty by clarifying rules.
Currently, SEC Chair Atkins and a new CFTC head are crypto-friendly—taking reasonable stances: Only assets meeting the securities definition should be classified as such. The Howey Test defines securities—dating to 1940s—but remains vague.
Briefly: Securities (e.g., stocks) offer dividends and rely on company statements/forecasts. Illustrating: Gold bars price purely on supply/demand—no entity controls it. Bitcoin and most altcoins resemble gold bars—commodities. Gold-mining stocks depend on company forecasts—e.g., “new gold discovery” statements sway investors. False statements incur liability.
Bitcoin resembles “gold bars”—not “gold-mining stocks.” If I say “BTC to $400K”—and it doesn’t happen—no one sues me. It’s opinion—not advice.
Bonnie: You launched a “Bitcoin super cycle” hedge fund—outperforming Bitcoin by 2.5% in Month One. How?
Michael Terpin:
We apply strategies outlined in my book. Frustratingly, when I advise buying Bitcoin, people resist opening Coinbase accounts—asking: “Is there a stock I can buy?” Yes, Bitcoin ETFs exist—but to beat BTC’s price, you need skilled fund management.
I reviewed existing Bitcoin funds—none focus solely on BTC *and* outperform it. Top funds returned ~47–52% in 2024. For traditional equity investors, that’s solid—but holding BTC yielded 120%. Plus, these funds perform poorly in bears—despite chart analysis/algo trading, strategies remain conservative.
Yet investing in Bitcoin doesn’t require full allocation. Goal: Beat BTC’s average price performance. In traditional finance, an S&P 500 hedge fund failing to beat the index loses appeal—and may fold. In Bitcoin, few funds beat BTC’s price performance.
Our aim: Be among the first funds to outperform BTC’s price—net of fees.
How Many Bitcoins Should You Hold?
Bonnie: Many young people seek clear goals—e.g., “Save X BTC.” If they’re in their 20s or early 30s, what’s your target?
Michael Terpin:
For ordinary people, owning one full BTC suffices.
If you’re in your 20s—planning retirement in your 60s—you have ~40 years for BTC value to grow. Also consider future fiat “debasement.” $1M’s purchasing power will differ vastly.
I recall Michael Saylor’s base-case BTC forecast: $13M in 20 years. For most middle-class folks, $10M enables comfortable retirement. Even if $10M’s real value equals $5M today, it still qualifies you as an “accredited investor.” $30M makes you “ultra high net worth.”
So—if you hold one BTC and retire in 40 years—I struggle to imagine BTC falling below $10M.
Thus, one BTC serves as intergenerational wealth. Buying more is better—especially in bears, when price dips and sentiment sours—
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
