New Bitcoin Bear Market Isn’t Over — Here’s the Proof

I’ve been re-thinking Bitcoin, cycles, and everything I thought I knew about this market.

I’ve found myself revisiting some important questions. Not because I suddenly stopped believing in the technology, or because I’ve turned bearish by default. But because the data keeps pushing me toward conclusions that don’t match the narratives most people are still clinging to.

For years, Bitcoin was simple — Buy the dips. Wait long enough. Let the cycles play out.

And for a long time, that worked beautifully.

But when I zoom out and really study Bitcoin’s price behavior, its drawdowns, its relationship to other assets, and — most importantly — the behavior of long-term holders in this cycle, I can’t ignore what’s changing.

This doesn’t look like past cycles. And pretending it does might be the most dangerous assumption of all.

Bitcoin has always moved in cycles. That part hasn’t changed.

What has changed is the scale of returns versus the scale of risk.

Early bull markets delivered absurd upside. 80x moves weren’t rare. Even later cycles still produced 20x returns from bottom to top.

But with every cycle, returns have diminished. Meanwhile, the bear markets? They’ve remained just as brutal.

Historically, Bitcoin bear markets have carved out drawdowns between 75% and 85% from the all-time high.

That happened after Mt. Gox.
 It happened after the ICO bubble.
 It happened after Terra and FTX.

Right now, we’re sitting at roughly a 45% drawdown from the peak. Which, historically speaking, isn’t that deep at all.

If Bitcoin were to follow past patterns — not narratives— it could still fall toward the $30,000 region before a true bottom forms.

That’s not a prediction. It’s an observation based on precedent.

What really nags at me is the imbalance that’s forming between risk and reward.

Bull market upside is shrinking. Bear market downside isn’t.

That’s a dangerous combination.

If the best-case upside is now closer to inflation-adjusted gains, while the worst-case downside still looks like a 75% drawdown, then buy-and-hold isn’t the no-brainer strategy it once was.

At that point, timing matters. Risk management matters. And blindly buying at a 40–50% drawdown may no longer be enough.

This is the data point that really made me stop and think.

In previous cycles, long-term holders sold into strength. They distributed near new all-time highs. They took profits when price was euphoric.

This cycle?

They started selling around $60,000, well before a clear blow-off top. And more importantly, they’re still selling into falling prices.

That’s not how long-term holders usually behave. It suggests a shift in conviction. Instead of believing “higher highs are inevitable,” it feels like long-term holders are saying, “I’m happy taking risk off now.”

That has consequences.

When long-term holders distribute early, they absorb demand that would normally fuel altcoin rallies. Liquidity never properly rotates outward. Speculative excess never fully forms.

And that helps explain why this cycle feels oddly muted despite all the headlines.

On the other side of the trade are short-term holders.

And frankly, they’re getting crushed.

Short-term holders are realizing losses at levels that are extreme even by bear-market standards. They’re selling faster. They’re panicking earlier. They’re absorbing the supply that long-term holders are unloading.

This creates a brutal dynamic.

The market becomes fragile. Every bounce turns into an opportunity to sell, not buy. That’s not what a bull market looks like.

Another belief I’ve had to re-evaluate is Bitcoin’s role as a superior growth asset.

When I compare Bitcoin’s performance to the expansion of the US monetary base, something jumps out. Bitcoin used to outperformmonetary debasement. Now, it mostly keeps pace with it.

The dollar supply grows at roughly 6.8% annually. Bitcoin’s long-term returns have increasingly converged toward that rate.

That doesn’t make Bitcoin useless. It makes it different. It behaves more like a hedge than a rocket ship.

And when I compare Bitcoin to the NASDAQ 100 — Since 2021, Bitcoin hasn’t outperformed tech stocks. It’s delivered worse risk-adjusted returns with far more volatility.

Same story with gold. Bitcoin hasn’t clearly beaten it since the 2021 peak.

That forces a hard question: If Bitcoin isn’t outperforming stocks or gold, why should it command higher risk exposure?

One of crypto’s biggest selling points was diversification.

That story is fading.

Bitcoin’s correlation with the NASDAQ has increased meaningfully over time. It behaves like a levered risk-on asset.

When equities sell off, crypto sells off harder. When equities rally, crypto doesn’t always follow with the same strength.

That asymmetry matters.

It means crypto no longer protects you when traditional markets wobble. It amplifies the downside. Unless that correlation breaks, crypto remains vulnerable to any major drawdown in stocks.

Ethereum deserves special mention here.

Since the Merge, Ethereum has consistently underperformed Bitcoin. Growth slowed. Institutional interest faded. Early investors began distributing.

Capital rotates between Ethereum and altcoins, but that rotation happens within a range that has existed since 2017. It’s not an expansion. It’s redistribution.

Most altcoins, over the long run, underperform Bitcoin. Inflationary tokenomics ensure that.

Ethereum, in my view, sits in an awkward middle ground. Not scarce enough like Bitcoin. Not explosive enough like early-stage altcoins.

That’s why I’m actually more bearish on Ethereum than on the altcoin basket as a whole.

This is where my thinking has changed the most.

I no longer believe buying at a 40–50% drawdown is “safe.” Historically, the best accumulation zones occurred below the realized price, which currently sits around $54,700.

Buying above that level has often led to years of drawdown before recovery.

That doesn’t mean trying to pick the exact bottom. It means being patient. Trend-following tools like the 44-day and 125-day moving averages have historically outperformed blind accumulation. They don’t catch tops or bottoms perfectly. They avoid the worst parts of the cycle.

That’s enough.

Dollar-cost averaging isn’t dead. But it only works if your horizon is long enough.

A six-year DCA strategy isoptimal. Shorter horizons? Much less reliable.

If you’re not willing to sit through a full cycle — or two — DCA won’t save you.

This is the uncomfortable truth.

Most retail investors lose money not because markets are rigged, but because they chase crowded trades, react emotionally, and confuse narratives with signals.

I find it easier — and often more profitable — to bet against weak assets than to pick winners. Most assets fail. That’s true in stocks and crypto.

Shorting weak, inflationary assets with bad fundamentals is often simpler than hunting the next big thing.

I’m not “anti-Bitcoin.” I’m not calling for the end of crypto.

I’m saying expectations need to change.

Bitcoin still matters. It still hedges against monetary debasement. But the era of effortless outperformance may be behind us.

This market demands timing, patience, and humility.

Right now, the data tells me:

So I stay cautious. I stay flexible. And I refuse to pretend this cycle looks like the last ones — because it doesn’t.

And ignoring that might be the biggest risk of all.

Found this article insightful?

It would mean a lot if you could give it a clap and follow for more financial alpha, which “influencers” are too lazy to study and share.🌟

Follow me on Twitter/X to stay always up to date.🎄