Nine reasons the Bitcoin bottom may already be in, according to an expert

Swan Bitcoin Managing Director John Haar argued on Wednesday that repeated comparisons between the current market cycle and the 2022 bear market miss a key point: the macro and market backdrop has changed. In a post on X, Haar said Bitcoin’s roughly $65,000 to $70,000 trading range has acted as a floor for the past two months and may already represent the cycle bottom.

A different macro regime

Haar’s argument begins with the macro environment, focusing on inflation and monetary policy. He said that in 2022, CPI reached a 40-year high, eroding purchasing power and giving the Federal Reserve a clear rationale to tighten aggressively. By contrast, he described inflation as having stabilized around 2.5% to 3% year over year, which he said is less threatening to risk assets.

He also pointed to interest rates, the Fed’s balance sheet, and broad money growth. Haar said 2022 featured the fastest rate-hiking cycle in modern history, while the current environment is characterized by steady or modestly lower rates. He further argued that balance-sheet expansion has returned and that there has been a multi-year run of month-over-month M2 growth, which he framed as liquidity support rather than a headwind.

Fiscal policy, he said, remains another difference. Haar argued that US deficit spending has stayed elevated at roughly 5% to 6% of GDP for more than three years, with no meaningful pullback in sight. Taken together, his view is that the macro forces that drove the 2022 unwind have been replaced by a more neutral—and potentially supportive—setup.

Contagion, then and now

Haar’s sixth point shifts from macro conditions to crypto market structure. He said 2022 was marked not only by a drawdown but by cascading institutional failures across tightly connected firms. He cited the collapses of Terra/Luna, Celsius, BlockFi, Three Arrows Capital, Voyager and FTX as events that amplified losses and damaged confidence across the sector.

He contrasted that with today’s environment, arguing that institutional counterparties are stronger, even if stress persists in pockets. Haar wrote that BlockFi is an example of institutional failure, but that its scale was a fraction of the 2022 failures. He also referenced “engineered cascading selloffs” as a theory that circulated during the prior cycle, which he said ultimately contributed to leveraged crypto funds imploding.

Institutional Bitcoin demand

In the final part of his thesis, Haar emphasized institutional demand as the most important difference between cycles. He said Strategy deployed about $270 million in 2022 to acquire roughly 8,000 BTC. He contrasted that with $22.5 billion in 2025 for 226,000 BTC, and another $8.5 billion year to date in 2026 for 108,000 BTC.

Haar also pointed to the launch and growth of spot Bitcoin ETFs and what he described as a broader shift in institutional posture. He wrote that spot Bitcoin ETFs are live with billions in assets under management, and cited public promotion of Bitcoin by BlackRock and the launch of a spot Bitcoin ETF by Morgan Stanley. He further cited Harvard’s endowment as holding a sizable Bitcoin position and said US federal policy has become more openly supportive.

Impact and caveats

Haar stopped short of guaranteeing a floor. He cautioned that Bitcoin can still trade below levels that appear technically or structurally supported, and warned that shocks—including war, supply-chain disruption, or energy shortages—could derail the setup.

His broader conclusion was that if 2022 was defined by tightening, forced liquidations and institutional absence, the current cycle may be defined more by liquidity, access, and deeper capital pools.

At press time, BTC traded at $73,862.