Will October reach $48,000? Saylor’s private event guest bets BTC will plunge another 50%
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Will October reach $48,000? Saylor’s private event guest bets BTC will plunge another 50%
“Most of today’s selling pressure comes from liquidations. Since the widespread adoption of perpetual contracts and 100x-leveraged instruments, retail traders are being liquidated far more frequently than four years ago.”
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsTranslation & Compilation: TechFlow
Guest: Michael Terpin (Founder & CEO of Transform Ventures; Author of Bitcoin Supercycle)
Hosts: David Lin, Bonnie Cheung
Original Title: “Short Bitcoin? Absolutely!” Says the “Godfather of Crypto”: This Price Level Is the Final Line of Defense!
Podcast Source: Bonnie Blockchain
Broadcast Date: May 14, 2026
Editor’s Note
In this episode, Michael Terpin delivers a bold assessment: the ~$60K level is highly unlikely to mark the true bottom of this cycle. A 2:1 probability favors further downside to the $48K–$57K range, with the timing window pointing to October this year.
Referred to by CNBC as the “Godfather of Crypto” and a frequent guest at Saylor’s private events, Terpin reveals insider details about Saylor’s strategic pivot: the 11.5% dividend obligation under STRC necessitates retaining a “circuit breaker”—i.e., the option to sell bitcoin to meet payments—not as a sign of strategic wavering, but as an inherent feature of its financing structure. He maintains his long-term target of $1 million per bitcoin by 2033, while asserting that AI tokens will outperform bitcoin over the next three years. He also predicts that quantum computing’s real threat lies not with BTC itself, but with Ethereum-based smart contracts—and that Satoshi’s alignment of halving cycles with U.S. presidential elections was no coincidence.
Key Quotes
Saylor’s Pivot and STRC’s Financing Structure
- “Saylor reserves the option to sell bitcoin to pay dividends—not because his conviction has weakened, but because his funding base has changed. STRC has evolved into a product driven jointly by retail and institutional investors. With a 11.5% dividend yield—roughly triple the Treasury yield—he must demonstrate his ability to honor it even under extreme stress.”
- “Saylor’s goal is to scale monthly purchases incrementally: from today’s level up to $10 billion, then $100 billion, $1 trillion, and ultimately $10 trillion. Whether $10 trillion is achievable remains uncertain—but $10 billion in monthly purchases is attainable in the foreseeable future. That represents enormous buying pressure, effectively establishing a floor for bitcoin’s price.”
- “Each OTC purchase he makes does not immediately lift the price—in fact, it’s surprisingly muted. That’s precisely what OTC channels are designed for: masking buy/sell activity.”
The October Bottom Thesis
- “We currently have roughly a 60% probability of further downside, targeting the $48K–$57K range. But unlike my February call, I no longer believe we’ll break below $40K—the buffering effect from STRC and ETFs has lifted the floor.”
- “Historically, each bottoming process takes about one year: the last cycle lasted exactly one year; the one before that fell just three days short; the first halving cycle ran one year plus several weeks. If this cycle concludes in just 12 weeks, it would mean multiple historical patterns simultaneously fail—a very low-probability event.”
- “The Coin Days Destroyed indicator points to a bottom near $42K—a historically accurate signal across prior cycles. Add in two empirical timeframes: 23 months from ‘first new high’ to ‘capitulation’, and 35 months from ‘bottom’ to ‘top’. All three independent indicators converge on October as the likely bottom.”
- “Today’s selling pressure isn’t coming from whales—they largely sold out in September, October, and November last year. Most current selling stems from liquidations, amplified by the proliferation of perpetual futures and 100x-leveraged instruments, which now clear far more retail traders than four years ago.”
Super-Cycles, Diminishing Returns, and Satoshi’s Design Intent
- “From $0.001 to $30 was a 3,000x gain; the second cycle delivered ~100x; the third, ~30x; the fourth was expected to deliver ~10x—but macro headwinds limited it to ~8x. Gains decay logarithmically; drawdowns converge arithmetically—that’s the true mathematical structure of halving cycles.”
- “A super-cycle requires two conditions: duration exceeding five years, and a fundamental shift in the asset’s core narrative. CME’s 2023 suggestion that currency devaluation might trigger a new commodity super-cycle remained uncertain—but by 2025, the answer is unequivocal.”
- “I don’t believe Satoshi’s alignment of halving dates with U.S. presidential elections is coincidental. Each halving occurs near a presidential election year; bear markets consistently land in midterm election years—indicating a remarkably precise understanding of economic rhythms.”
Quantum Threats, AI Tokens, and Bitcoin
- “Quantum computers won’t crack bitcoin for another 15–20 years. Before targeting bitcoin, attackers will prioritize other SHA-256 applications—defense systems, hospitals, banks. Cracking Satoshi’s wallet is vastly harder than breaching JPMorgan Chase.”
- “What truly worries me isn’t quantum attacks on bitcoin—but rather, cutting-edge AI models (e.g., OpenAI’s unreleased Mythos-class models) falling into malicious hands and exploiting critical Ethereum smart contracts—like Lido, which holds massive ETH staked. That would be this cycle’s potential ‘FTX moment’.”
- “Over the next three years, top-tier AI tokens will outperform bitcoin. Much of this capital will eventually flow back into bitcoin. Moreover, stablecoin users now hold their first wallets—dramatically lowering the friction cost of entering bitcoin and other tokens.”
Jane Street’s Selling Pressure and Wall Street Tactics
- “It’s widely reported that Jane Street systematically sells bitcoin and builds short positions within thirty minutes after U.S. equity market open. I lack direct evidence—but when this activity reportedly ceased, prices rose sharply. That itself serves as indirect confirmation.”
- “The classic whale-era playbook: buy large volumes OTC, short on small exchanges, let arbitrage bots drag down global prices, then profit twice—by closing shorts and acquiring discounted OTC inventory. This strategy has existed for decades in gold markets—and Wall Street has now imported it into bitcoin.”
Saylor’s Strategic Pivot
Host David: Welcome back to the show. We’re once again at Consensus Miami—and thrilled to welcome Michael Terpin for the second time in one year. Michael is author of Bitcoin Supercycle, dubbed the “Godfather of Crypto” by CNBC, and Founder & CEO of Transform Ventures. Today, we want to hear his view on where bitcoin goes next.
Host Bonnie: Michael, we’ll soon discuss bitcoin’s direction—but first, address this immediate question: What’s your take on Saylor’s strategic pivot? I know you’re a major STRC investor—and you discussed it with us three months ago.
Michael Terpin: He himself says it’s not a pivot—it’s tied directly to his current funding sources. I’ve spoken with Saylor many times. I’ve long argued—if your goal is to accumulate more bitcoin over the long term, you should sell at peaks and buy back at troughs. That’s the core thesis of my book—and how my fund operates.
About two years ago, Saylor told me: if he took any action inconsistent with “buy forever”, Wall Street buyers would doubt his thesis and stop writing unconditional checks. At that time, his funding came from institutional investors using preferred shares and similar instruments. But STRC has changed—it’s now a product driven equally by retail and institutions.
Markets now ask: How will he pay that 11.5% dividend? It’s nearly triple Treasury yields—yet still considered relatively safe. He must prove he can sell bitcoin to cover it—but that doesn’t mean he’ll actually do so. Historically, Treasury companies were forced to sell only during board crises or at absolute market bottoms. Saylor is neither. He and Strategy remain unwavering long-term holders. His financial engineering—borrowing at 11.5% to capture >20% annualized appreciation—is sound. But he must retain a “circuit breaker” for emergencies. Personally, I see virtually no chance he does so in the near term.
The Path to $1 Million Bitcoin
Host David: One year ago at BTC Vegas, you forecast bitcoin reaching $1 million by 2033. Does that still hold?
Michael Terpin: Yes—it remains unchanged. My $1 million forecast stands unaltered. We’re currently in the “Autumn of Bitcoin” (a phase in my four-season cyclical framework). The only meaningful change since last year is STRC’s emergence—providing Strategy with unprecedented purchasing power even amid bearish conditions. On his most recent ex-dividend date, Saylor raised ~$7 billion.
Last week at the Bitcoin Conference in Vegas, he delivered a keynote, then hosted a private session for whales. He stated his goal: escalate monthly purchases from today’s level to $10 billion, $100 billion, $1 trillion, and ultimately $10 trillion. Whether $10 trillion is feasible remains unknown—but $10 billion/month is achievable in the near future, and $100 billion is clearly foreseeable. That constitutes massive buying pressure—effectively setting a floor beneath the bottom.
In February, I judged the dip wasn’t a true bottom because price failed to reach the 200-week moving average. To qualify, it needed to break below $57K—but rebounded sharply off $60K instead. Past capitulation phases never featured such sharp rebounds; they involved prolonged sideways consolidation until everyone lost interest in bitcoin.
Who’s Driving Price Action?
Host David: Earlier today, we interviewed Saylor—he humbly claimed his purchases don’t move price. Your thoughts?
Michael Terpin: I wouldn’t say his purchases leave price entirely unaffected. Rather, they establish a floor—I believe he’d buy aggressively if price dropped to $39K. Yet each purchase lifts price surprisingly little, precisely because he buys OTC—and OTC inherently masks trading activity. Historically, much whale-era volatility emerged this way: heavy OTC buying, followed by public-market selling pressure and short positioning to depress prices. This is a Wall Street playbook already deployed across other assets. I see traces of such dynamics in the volatility around October 10.
Host Bonnie: As more whales and institutions accumulate larger positions, how will bitcoin’s volatility evolve?
Michael Terpin: Whale share hasn’t risen—but institutional share has. Still, most whales who sold in October will likely rebuy—proportionally or even more aggressively. That’s core to the “Four Seasons Theory”: fear and greed drive seasonal shifts. Prices at the end of “Summer” (bubble peak) vastly exceed those at the start of “Autumn” (bubble burst). Accurately identifying Autumn’s first day (bubble burst) and final day (capitulation) makes >4x single-cycle returns quite achievable.
Host David: If institutions treat bitcoin as permanent capital, won’t that reduce liquidity and increase volatility?
Michael Terpin: True permanent capital would—but ETFs aren’t permanent. Capital flows in and out. Still, ETF holders trade less frequently than first-generation retail. Those early retail investors refused self-custody—even found Coinbase cumbersome—and only bought via traditional brokers like Charles Schwab. Historically, they cut losses during downturns—but their selling rate is milder than the “FOMO-chasing, panic-selling” retail of four or eight years ago. Perhaps their broker advised holding in an IRA for ten years.
Host Bonnie: Saylor’s large OTC purchases imply counterparties selling to him. Are whales doing the selling?
Michael Terpin: Whales sold out long ago. Today’s sellers are mostly liquidation-driven. Perpetual futures and novel derivatives now trigger far more liquidations than four years ago. BitMEX pioneered 100x leverage in 2020; now Hyperliquid and others offer it too. Plus, trading bots are ubiquitous—many retail traders, flush with small gains, overleverage and get wiped out. Liquidation volume is visible on-chain—not the majority of selling pressure, but a significant portion.
Host Bonnie: You say whales have already sold—so these are active traders, not cold-wallet holders?
Michael Terpin: Most whales hold in cold wallets. Sellers represent ~10% of addresses holding bitcoin for >8 years—especially >10 years. Most old wallets remain untouched—or moved only once, into SegWit addresses for OpSec. Every four-year cycle features two moves: selling near tops, rebuying after bottoms form. They tend to sell early and buy late—always thinking “it’ll go lower.” The 2021–2022 cycle showed this clearly on-chain.
Why $60K Is Likely Not the Bottom
Host David: Last time we spoke, bitcoin was at $60K—you predicted further decline.
Michael Terpin: Correct—that was our Hong Kong conversation. This time, price dipped toward—but didn’t truly reach—the bottom. Saylor claims February’s low was the bottom. If so, it implies most historical indicators simultaneously failed. Typically, only one or two indicators deviate per cycle—if most diverge, the entire cycle thesis warrants scrutiny.
First, bottoming historically takes ~one year: last cycle lasted exactly one year; the one before fell three days short; the first halving cycle ran one year plus weeks. A 12-week conclusion implies insufficient capitulation—weak-handed holders haven’t yet surrendered.
Second, technical indicators point to October. Coin Days Destroyed (measuring long-term holder selling intensity) signals ~$42K—a historically reliable signal. Also, the “first new high to capitulation” window: past cycles averaged 23 months. And “bottom to top”: 35 months. Counting 35 months from the last top lands just days before the bubble burst—aligning perfectly. Both 23-month and 35-month windows converge on October.
The sole ambiguity: this cycle saw its “first new high” pre-halving—ETF approval triggered a March 2024 peak at $73,850, then a correction. Historically unprecedented. If the 23-month count starts from that ETF month, it points to February—matching the $60K low. Thus, my consistent view: ~70% probability the bottom hasn’t formed. With price now near $83K, I see strong shorting opportunity—my fund is actively shorting. But ~40% probability the bottom has formed, requiring reverse hedges. Overall, odds favor continued downside 2:1—I’m selling near $80K+, aiming to repurchase in the $60K–$50K range.
Compared to February, the only change is my belief that $40K won’t be breached—STRC and ETF buying provide cushion. Each halving cycle shows diminishing returns and smaller drawdowns. This cycle delivers the lowest returns historically—I’d expected ~3x neutral-macro upside, but got only ~2.3x. Expected drawdown was ~66%; actual drop from $126K to $60K is ~54%. So my estimated bottom is $48K–$55K—even $57K is plausible—if price breaks February’s $60K and hits the 200-week MA, the cycle narrative holds.
Will AI’s Disruption of Software Extend to Bitcoin?
Host Bonnie: AI is disrupting the entire software industry. The IGV ETF (software index ETF) is down ~25% YTD—mainstream media declares “anything built on code is being repriced.” Bitcoin runs on code too—will it face similar repricing?
Michael Terpin: No. Bitcoin has withstood countless attacks. No Mythos-class model will crack bitcoin’s code—it’s too deeply layered. Bitcoin isn’t just code; it’s all permanently sealed blocks. Quantum threats theoretically involve brute-forcing private keys—compressing billions of years of computation into minutes to test all 45-character alphanumeric combinations. But I estimate this remains 15–20 years away.
Before attacking bitcoin, quantum computing will target other SHA-256 applications: defense systems, hospitals, banks. Cracking Satoshi’s wallet is harder than breaching JPMorgan Chase. Bitcoin requires cracking wallets individually—not the whole network—its decentralization advantage.
My real concern: AI breaching a critical Ethereum smart contract, triggering ETH collapse and dragging bitcoin down. This is the most probable “FTX moment” between now and October—e.g., Lido (Ethereum’s largest liquid staking protocol) hacked, with staked ETH siphoned to North Korea. Such an event could push bitcoin to $40K. Without black swans, ordinary hedge fund unwinds may only push it below $60K.
Host Bonnie: Everyone discusses quantum cracking bitcoin—but rarely Ethereum. Could quantum crack Ethereum first?
Michael Terpin: I didn’t say quantum cracks Ethereum itself—but that next-gen AI models could breach Ethereum-based smart contracts. OpenAI reportedly holds unreleased Mythos-class models; other labs now possess equivalents. If leaked to bad actors, they’ll actively hunt vulnerabilities. History’s closest Ethereum collapse was the 2016 DAO hack—Vitalik and community rolled back the chain to erase the theft. Then, $60M represented double-digit % of ETH’s market cap—price plunged from $30 to ~$6, yet recovered.
Bitcoin, Nasdaq, Gold Correlation & War Hedging
Host Bonnie: From a super-cycle lens—why have bitcoin, Nasdaq, and gold moved in lockstep over the past three months? I overlaid them—ignoring the orange 10Y yield line—and their 6-month trajectories align closely.
Michael Terpin: Post-war, bitcoin briefly decoupled—it traded sideways then rallied, while gold didn’t follow. I haven’t done daily comparisons, but bitcoin outperforming gold post-war is rare recently.
Host Bonnie: Does this mean gold’s anti-war hedging narrative is being replaced by bitcoin?
Michael Terpin: Not yet. “Bitcoin is digital gold” remains the dominant narrative—though its market cap is still dwarfed by gold’s. Yet bitcoin possesses traits many deem more robust: scarcity—halving every 4 years vs. gold’s ~1.5% annual supply growth. Over 100 years, gold supply could rise 150%; bitcoin’s rises ~4%.
Global Liquidity, Presidential Elections & Super-Cycles
Host David: Is liquidity still bitcoin’s primary driver? Lyn Alden (macro analyst) years ago overlaid global M2 growth with bitcoin price—showing high correlation. Does this undermine your cycle theory?
Michael Terpin: No—it complements it. Global liquidity cycles are driven by presidential elections and policy—detailed in my book. Satoshi aligned halvings near presidential elections and bear markets near midterms—not coincidentally.
Host David: Why “not coincidentally”?
Michael Terpin: Satoshi didn’t state it explicitly in the whitepaper—but facts show 2012, 2016, 2020, 2024, and next 2028 all align with U.S. elections. He couldn’t control it precisely—the cycle is fixed at 210,000 blocks, targeted at 10-minute intervals (~4 years). Difficulty adjustment automatically adjusts mining difficulty based on block speed—speeding up increases difficulty, slowing down decreases it. This mechanism enhances network security—I devote a full chapter to mining economics in my book.
Host Bonnie: So the 4-year cycle is U.S.-election-based—did Satoshi design around the U.S.?
Michael Terpin: I believe so—because the U.S. remains the world’s largest economy, influencing global dynamics. Whether Satoshi was an individual or team, their grasp of economics is extraordinarily precise—and they projected this arrangement would stabilize for centuries. Beyond the first 5–6–7 cycles, we enter the “super-cycle” effects I detail. Even in Cycle 5, 96% of bitcoin issuance is complete. Cycle 1 was most profitable—you mined coins for < $0.01, though none sold before 2010. Hal Finney (first bitcoin recipient, and first miner besides Satoshi) said: “This either goes to zero—or $10 million per coin.”
Host Bonnie: Do you think Hal Finney was Satoshi?
Michael Terpin: He’s among plausible suspects—but it remains unsolved. ~20 candidates have reasonable suspicion, yet none confirmed. Recent speculation points to Adam Back (Hashcash inventor, Blockstream CEO)—but he denies it. Critics cite his British spelling and Canadian timezone in early forum posts. So it remains speculative.
Fiat Devaluation, Trust Erosion & Commodity Super-Cycles
Host David: Over the past decade’s bitcoin rally, how much was driven by fiat devaluation and sovereign debt accumulation?
Michael Terpin: A large share. The biggest liquidity creator is money printing—and when the U.S. prints, others print more, eroding trust in fiat systems. My book details three 100-year commodity super-cycles. Elliott Wave Theory (Ralph Nelson Elliott’s century-old market cycle framework) distinguishes grand and minor super-cycles. A super-cycle requires two conditions: duration >5 years, and a fundamental shift in the asset’s core narrative.
The first super-cycle was 1970s gold—triggered by two simultaneous narratives: Nixon ending the gold standard, and Americans regaining legal gold ownership rights. One created a new reason to buy gold; the other, a new buyer pool—driving 4x price gains. The second was 1990s commodities—copper, nickel—fueled by China’s hyper-industrialization.
My book cites CME’s 2023 report suggesting money printing and currency devaluation may spark a new super-cycle—but uncertainty remained. By 2025, the answer is crystal clear.
Host David: Have you heard of Neil Howe’s “Fourth Turning” (predicting societal institutional collapse every 80 years)? Does bitcoin’s recent surge reflect trust erosion from the Fourth Turning?
Michael Terpin: An intriguing question. Similar generational amnesia theories predate “Fourth Turning.” The 80-year window is debated—each decade brings dramatic events. My observation: the past 50 years show remarkably consistent tech cycles—each decade hosts at least one major disruptive technology, typically peaking late-decade.
Recall: the internet began in 1991 (DARPA’s experimental network dates to the 1960s), but I first encountered it in 1993—browsers downloaded from Marc Andreessen’s dorm, still a university project. Late-decade: dot-com bubble. 2000s: Web 2.0 and social media—LinkedIn, MySpace launched from scratch; Facebook emerged late-decade. 2010s: bitcoin—purchased for pennies in 2010, nearing $60K in 2020. This decade: AI—OpenAI launched its first commercial LLM in 2022, breaking all user-growth records. Netflix took a year to hit 1M users; OpenAI took 5 days—now nearing 1B.
AI, like the internet, brewed for decades. My brother graduated from MIT’s AI Lab in the 1990s—I thought expert systems and Prolog would ignite AI, but they didn’t. LLMs and agents were the true catalysts—today, AI drives most S&P 500 growth.
Will AI Investment Divert Capital from Bitcoin?
Host David: AI is the new “sexy” investment—what is bitcoin?
Michael Terpin: Two points. First, it’s a massive pie: equity investors rotate from other sectors into Mag 7 (the seven largest tech stocks, AI beneficiaries); Sand Hill Road allocates >80% of VC budgets to AI—but this is intra-asset-class rotation. Gold investors won’t sell gold for AI; bitcoin holders won’t sell bitcoin for AI. Marginally, some may shift from 30% crypto allocation to 20% crypto + 10% AI—but money supply keeps growing, leaving room for all assets.
Second, AI tokens surged even in bear markets—though their total market cap remains tiny. In late 2024, the AI token sector saw a 100x run (Oct–Dec), then crashed. Recently, Venice’s VVV token rose ~500% in 90 days—from $2 to ~$10. Bittensor doubled—though still far from prior highs.
My view: Top AI tokens will outperform bitcoin over the next 3 years—and much of that capital will flow back into bitcoin. Stablecoins—the crypto economy’s newest force—mean stablecoin users now hold their first “wallets,” drastically reducing friction to enter bitcoin and other tokens. I was an early Tether participant—founded in early 2014 by Brock Pierce and Reeve Collins in Santa Monica, later sold to Bitfinex and spun off as Tether. Initially, everyone envisioned only “faster exchange transfers without 3-day waits—and earning bank interest.” No one foresaw a 100-employee business earning $20B annually from U.S. Treasuries.
Cyclical Diminishing Returns & Super-Cycle Math
Host David: How will future cycles evolve? Bull-run gains from bottom to top keep shrinking. If this continues, mathematically, gains approach zero.
Michael Terpin: Exactly—hence the super-cycle’s importance. We observe “logarithmic decay in gains” and “arithmetic convergence in drawdowns.” Specifically: Cycle 1 (pre-halving, imperfect comparison) rose from $0.001 to $30—3,000x, then fell 97% to $1; Cycle 1 halving: $12 to $1,200—100x, fell 85%; Cycle 3: 30x, fell 83%. Sequence: 3,000 → 100 → 30 → logically, 10.
I’d expected ~10x from the halving price of $8,700 during COVID—but price peaked at $68K–$69K—~8x. I attribute this to macro headwinds: Biden’s crypto crackdown, Operation Choke Point 2.0 (alleged financial disconnection policies), and rate hikes. I’m amazed it only shrank 20%. Including the ETF approval-month peak of $73,850 (~9x), plus the rebound from FTX’s post-collapse low of $15K, this cycle’s upside appears capped at ~3x—depending on macro conditions.
All assumed Trump’s win would bring tailwinds—but they overlooked his chaotic communication style. His tweets often trigger market volatility; per The Art of the Deal, he sets extreme demands first, then concedes to “win.” Such political tactics shock media and markets—causing the October 10 volatility.
October’s peak aligns perfectly with historical top locations—but some argue another 1–2 months of upside remained, needing sufficient buying pressure and no black swans. October 10 was that black swan: Trump’s tweet, order-book chaos, market-maker liquidations—a perfect storm causing freefall. Concurrent traditional-market selling and shorting—possibly rapid institutional action upon spotting signals—initiated the full bear market.
Jane Street’s 10 AM Selling Pressure & Wall Street Tactics
Host David: Finally, comment on rumors of Jane Street selling bitcoin daily at 10 AM.
Michael Terpin: Widely reported—but I lack direct evidence. However, the sheer volume of reporting suggests it likely occurred. And when it reportedly stopped, prices rose. The narrative: Jane Street systematically sells 30 minutes post-U.S. equity open, paired with short-sellers’ typical bearish messaging. Price drops because they’re selling—and they’ve pre-positioned shorts to profit both ways.
Host Bonnie: Is this legal?
Michael Terpin: Mostly yes. Commodities or securities face restrictions—but bitcoin’s legal definition remains unclear, making shorting-related boundaries fuzzy. I’m not a lawyer—but Wall Street firms pay fines amounting to fractions of their trading revenue annually. Whale-era games are fully playable—and actively played—by Wall Street today.
Host Bonnie: So ETF inflows visible to retail don’t preclude simultaneous derivative shorting?
Michael Terpin: Correct. Equity markets operate similarly—with dark pools and OTC desks. The classic whale-era profit method: bulk OTC buying, shorting on small exchanges (arbitrage pulls global prices down), while holding large shorts. E.g., short at $85K targeting $75K—hold enough bitcoin to trigger selling pressure, then buy back at the depressed price and close shorts profitably.
Host Bonnie: Does this explain famously “unprofitable” on-chain addresses—like James Wynn? They’re likely hedged on exchanges.
Michael Terpin: I can’t confirm for them. Many X accounts openly declare “$1B profit, $1B loss”; YouTube traders livestream—but not necessarily all trades. Bitcoin’s greatest advantage is transparent on-chain data—but post-ETF, much trading hides in Coinbase’s internal ledgers and off-chain derivatives markets. This tactic has existed in gold markets for decades.
Host David: If you rewrote your book today, what would you change?
Michael Terpin: I’d add granular details on possible cycle-end scenarios—previously simplifying the most likely outcome as “~$193K under neutral macro.” I’d also include formulas—like the 35-month rule—but avoided excessive technicality initially.
Host David: We recommend Michael’s Bitcoin Supercycle.
Michael Terpin: And your channel—thank you.
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
