Get the latest crypto news, updates, and reports by subscribing to our free newsletter.
Giấy phép số 4978/GP-TTĐT do Sở Thông tin và Truyền thông Hà Nội cấp ngày 14 tháng 10 năm 2019 / Giấy phép SĐ, BS GP ICP số 2107/GP-TTĐT do Sở TTTT Hà Nội cấp ngày 13/7/2022.
© 2026 Index.vn
Production of bean sprouts using the toxin 6-Benzylaminopurine (6-BAP) has led to criminal proceedings in Lao Cai, authorities said, after police uncovered a facility supplying toxic sprouts to wholesale markets. On April 4, Lao Cai Provincial Police announced the indictment of Chu Thi Hoa (born 1990, from Phu Tho) for…
Bitcoin has allegedly “won,” at least according to Michael Saylor. The difficulty for the argument is that markets typically require evidence, and Bitcoin is currently being pushed through a macro stress test. Saylor’s latest bullish framing lands at a sensitive moment for BTC: institutional demand appears stronger than a year ago, the traditional four-year cycle looks less predictable than before, and the post-halving trajectory has already deviated from expectations. Still, Bitcoin’s price action continues to behave like a risk asset tethered to macro conditions rather than a stable, independent reserve layer.
Saylor’s core claim is that Bitcoin is increasingly being absorbed into broader financial infrastructure. The argument is that it is moving beyond a retail-driven speculative trade toward a digital reserve asset and, eventually, a credit instrument. This framing shifts attention away from retail cycle mania and toward institutional balance sheets, structured products, and finance backed by BTC.
The logic is not without support. The 2024 halving did not trigger the clean, reflexive supply squeeze that some expected. Instead, Bitcoin’s market structure has started to look more mature but also more complicated, with spot ETFs, treasury accumulation, and wider institutional ownership diluting the older, more orderly cycle rhythm. If the prior playbook is weakening, a new one is likely required.
Bitcoin is down roughly 32% from its yearly peak near $97,000. Q1 ended with a 22% correction, and April has begun with further weakness. While these moves do not rule out a long-term bull case, they indicate that BTC remains highly sensitive to liquidity conditions, geopolitical risk, and broader market sentiment.
The near-term environment is also not calm. Markets are entering a fresh session with geopolitical tension in focus, particularly around the Strait of Hormuz. The risk is that energy-market volatility could spill into equities and crypto. If U.S. risk assets weaken after the U.S. reopen, Bitcoin is unlikely to receive special treatment solely because the institutional narrative sounds stronger on paper.
The central issue for the “Bitcoin has won” claim is whether BTC can decouple from panic when conditions deteriorate. At present, it has not shown convincing evidence of that separation.
On-chain data adds a more cautious note. Bitcoin transaction fees have fallen to about 2.5 BTC per day, the lowest reading since 2011, according to the source data cited (Glassnode). Fees are not a perfect measure of value, but they can reflect network demand and transactional urgency. When fees compress to this extent, it often suggests softer blockspace demand and thinner organic activity.
This matters because a network evolving into a foundational financial asset would, in theory, show persistent usage and economic throughput. The current fee level therefore cuts against the idea of a market in full adoption-driven expansion. Structural explanations could exist, including changes in user behavior or more efficient transaction practices, but the headline still points to relatively quiet activity.
Fee weakness also becomes more relevant after halving events. With miner fee revenue reduced, the future security model depends more heavily on transaction demand rather than block subsidies. Anaemic fee generation is not described as a crisis in the source material, but it is presented as a metric worth close monitoring.
Off-chain flow indicators have not offered strong relief. The Coinbase Premium Index has remained negative, suggesting U.S.-based buying interest has been softer relative to offshore venues. In practice, this can indicate muted demand or selling by institutional and large-dollar participants using Coinbase-linked channels.
There was a brief improvement when BTC revisited the $75,000 area, implying some bids emerged at lower levels. However, the rebound in sentiment has not appeared durable. The market appears willing to buy weakness selectively rather than chase strength with conviction.
Another pressure point comes from short-term holder positioning. Daily and 90-day Short-Term Holder Net Position Change readings have pointed to distribution rather than fresh accumulation. In other words, more recent buyers are rotating coins back into the market instead of holding for higher prices.
This pattern is often associated with fragile confidence. Short-term holders tend to react early to volatility, and their selling can amplify local weakness—particularly if derivatives markets are already stretched. The source material does not frame this as proof of a major bear phase, but it does suggest speculative participants are not yet convinced that the next upside move is imminent.
For a bullish narrative centered on institutional maturity, this is described as awkward but informative. It implies the market remains transitional: long-term participants may be positioning Bitcoin as digital credit, pristine collateral, or reserve-grade money, while shorter-term participants are still trading it like a high-volatility macro instrument. The coexistence of these two realities can create friction.
The implications of Saylor’s call extend to Bitcoin’s cycle structure. The old halving-led pattern was never guaranteed, but it was reliable enough to become market folklore. This time, the rhythm has weakened. The source material argues that ETF flows, treasury buying, derivatives depth, and sovereign-scale macro variables now matter more than in earlier eras.
That does not mean Bitcoin has become a fully stable institutional asset. Instead, the market is described as becoming more reflexive and more entangled with global finance. The risks highlighted include rate shocks, geopolitical stress, equity correlation, and institutional de-risking.
In this view, replacing a familiar speculative cycle with dependence on macro liquidity is not automatically a clean upgrade. The chart may still be “bullied” by larger players when conditions tighten.
If Bitcoin can absorb the current bout of uncertainty, hold key demand zones, and see institutional flows turn constructive again, Saylor’s argument would look less like evangelism and more like early diagnosis. If it fails, the market would be expected to reinforce the distinction between narrative and adoption.
The source material concludes that the truth is likely mixed: Bitcoin’s institutional status is no longer theoretical, but it is not complete. It is being integrated into mainstream finance while still behaving like a high-beta asset when macro conditions tighten.
Saylor may be right over the long run, but the market is seeking additional data points in the meantime.
In brief\n\nBitcoin dropped to about $93,000, falling back below the EMA50 and putting its recent golden cross at risk of invalidation. The global crypto market cap stands at $3.15 trillion, down 2.38% in 24 hours. On Myriad Markets, 82% of the money is betting on Bitcoin pumping to $100K before…
