This crypto market move is pretty intense—it’s igniting the enthusiasm of genius traders.
Let’s first get a clear picture of what’s happened recently. A lot of the discussions are built on incorrect causal understanding.
This uptrend isn’t driven by an internal event within the crypto community; it’s the combined effect of two external events.
On August 19, the U.S. Treasury announced that it would at least double the liquidity-support repo limit for 10- to 30-year Treasury bonds—raising it from $2 billion per transaction to at least $4 billion—effective September 9. Mechanically, the scale of this operation is negligible compared to the $40 trillion debt outstanding. The market quickly realized it didn’t create new buyers; it only shortened the duration of existing debt—so the yield drop was basically reversed within a day.
But the signal means something different. When the federal debt crosses $40 trillion and the long-end yield hits the highest level since 2007, stepping in to suppress borrowing costs sends the market this message: policymakers can no longer tolerate long-term interest rates being high enough. This directly reinforces the depreciation trade—so gold rises in sync, the dollar weakens, and the Financial Times describes this move as a return of the debasement trade.
Around the same time, Trump publicly urged Congress to pass the CLARITY Act. On August 19, the entire market blew up more than $1.4 billion in short positions. Combined, the three factors pulled Bitcoin from 64,700 to 79,000, over 23% in a week.
Next is what I think is the biggest misconception in the discussion.
The common saying is that “Bitcoin’s bearish factors are basically fully priced in; the only remaining uncertainty is a clear bill.” This framing reverses the causal relationship. The clear bill is not the last risk that hasn’t materialized yet—it is the fuel of this rally itself.
Current status of the bill: it has passed the House of Representatives. In May, it passed the Senate Banking Committee, and September 15 will be the first procedural vote. The core controversy is the stablecoin yield provisions—under the current draft, issuers are prohibited from paying interest to users solely because they hold balances, but they are allowed to offer activity-based rewards tied to payments, remittances, or liquidity provision; the banking industry is lobbying to tighten the wording. Standard Chartered’s calculations explain the motivation: if the provisions are loosened, by 2028 there could be as much as $500 billion in deposits moving from traditional banks to stablecoin products.
In the odds market, Galaxy Research has cut the probability of becoming law by year-end from 50% to 30%, and Polymarket traders briefly gave only about 17% in early August.
So the real risk structure is: buying at 77,000 is paying a premium for an event that the market assigns only a 30% probability to. The marginal positive impact from the upside, brought by it, is likely smaller than the marginal negative impact from failure.
As for whether there “will be a big bull market,” the long-term logic worth watching most is this reflexivity chain:
With US federal debt surpassing $40 trillion, interest spending has already exceeded defense spending. As of June 2026, the combined amount held by the US, the UK, and China—together the three countries holding the most US Treasuries—was about $2.69 trillion, and incremental buy-side demand is fading. Stablecoins are currently the most politically feasible alternative buyer. Under the GENIUS Act, issuers must hold cash or US Treasury securities maturing within 93 days—precisely the kind of assets the Treasury needs to issue—and there’s no need for the Fed to expand its balance sheet or for spending to hit the government budget.
But stablecoin growth is tightly tied to the crypto market. Data from the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City shows that about 48.8% of stablecoin supply is held in trading and financial scenarios, transfers account for about 29%, and actual payments are estimated at only about 0.7%. The main users are still traders who need dollars to move between risk assets. And Bitcoin accounts for more than half of the total crypto market cap—historically, no altcoin season has ever occurred without a Bitcoin bull market.
That chain therefore closes: the Treasury needs new buyers → the new buyers are stablecoins → stablecoins need crypto trading volume → crypto trading volume needs a Bitcoin bull market.
This logic’s soft spot must be pointed out too: this is “having motives,” not “having a tool.” The US strategic Bitcoin reserve established by a March 2025 executive order has had no publicly confirmed record of any open-market purchases to date. In August 2025, Bessent explicitly stated that, under the existing framework, the government would not buy. The BITCOIN Act proposed by Senator Lummis—which would require buying 1 million Bitcoins within five years—has never even reached a vote in the chamber. With motive but no direct leverage, you can’t derive an inevitable outcome.
Also, positions need to be assessed objectively. Bitcoin’s previous all-time high was 126,198 on October 6, 2025, and Ethereum’s was 4,953 on August 24, 2025. Right now, Bitcoin is about -38% below the prior high, while Ethereum is about -50%. This is the position of a bear-market rebound, not a continuation point in a bull market. Admitting that doesn’t change the long-term bullish view—it only affects how you place your bets.
Lastly, regarding the claim that “crypto has already decoupled from US stocks”: this did briefly happen earlier this year. After the Iran conflict, Bitcoin’s correlation with the software stock ETF (IGV) fell from 1.0 to 0.13. But by the end of June, the trend was disproved—Bitcoin fell back to 60,000 and so did big tech. Recent capital rotations in the AI memory hardware sector have also created headwinds. The test is simple: if US stocks fall and crypto holds up independently, then an independent行情 is real; if they keep moving together, you can’t really say it’s decoupled.#BTC触及80000美元 $BTC $ETH
