Killa’s “contradictory playbook”: the bottom is at 62,000—but will over 20 billion long positions have to die first?
Last night, Killa posted an article, and I read it three times.
In the same piece, he said two things:
First: “The bottom of this Bitcoin cycle may already be in place; a drop to $50,000 in October is nearly impossible.”
Second: “If Bitcoin falls to $61,000, the expected value of long liquidations would be as high as $20 billion. Market makers have the motive and the possibility to first liquidate the long positions, then rebuild their positions.”
And so on.
The bottom is already in—but $61,000 would liquidate $20 billion worth of longs?
How could these two judgments both be true?
Either his mind is scrambled—or he’s describing something that most people haven’t understood.
Killa is a quant trader focused on BTC. In May 2025, he accurately predicted the top of this bull cycle; he has 200k followers on the X platform.
In mid-April this year, he shorted Bitcoin at $74,688.
On June 5, during the broad market sell-off, he switched to going long, putting up 90% of his position.
On August 24, he said $70,000–$73,000 was the bottom.
On August 29, he lowered the bottom to $62,000.
Every time he flips, his decisions are supported by quantitative data.
So what exactly is his logic?
Previously, he looked at cycle patterns and the proportion of profitable addresses—that was the macro perspective.
Now he’s switched to a micro “market maker clears longs, then rebuilds” game-theory perspective.
What does that mean?
The $62,000 level isn’t something derived from a model. It’s a direct response to the current leveraged structure.
The market maker’s playbook might look like this:
First, push downward through $61,000—trigger the stop-loss orders of those $20 billion in long positions—then pick up enough inventory at the low price—and finally rally it up, rebuilding at the new bottom.
The bottom can still hold, but the path to reaching it may involve a targeted sweep designed to flush out leverage.
Bottom and liquidation are two sides of the same coin.
If you believe $62,000 is the bottom and you go all-in with orders right away, it might not be the optimal solution.
A better strategy would be to wait for that pin that pierces $61,000 to appear.
Let the market maker fire the last bullet for you, and then you enter.
The bottom is reached—but the road isn’t flat. There’s a $20 billion “speed bump” waiting for the long side.
What do you think? Will the $61,000 longs be targeted for liquidation, or is Killa manufacturing panic?
Last night, Killa posted an article, and I read it three times.
In the same piece, he said two things:
First: “The bottom of this Bitcoin cycle may already be in place; a drop to $50,000 in October is nearly impossible.”
Second: “If Bitcoin falls to $61,000, the expected value of long liquidations would be as high as $20 billion. Market makers have the motive and the possibility to first liquidate the long positions, then rebuild their positions.”
And so on.
The bottom is already in—but $61,000 would liquidate $20 billion worth of longs?
How could these two judgments both be true?
Either his mind is scrambled—or he’s describing something that most people haven’t understood.
Killa is a quant trader focused on BTC. In May 2025, he accurately predicted the top of this bull cycle; he has 200k followers on the X platform.
In mid-April this year, he shorted Bitcoin at $74,688.
On June 5, during the broad market sell-off, he switched to going long, putting up 90% of his position.
On August 24, he said $70,000–$73,000 was the bottom.
On August 29, he lowered the bottom to $62,000.
Every time he flips, his decisions are supported by quantitative data.
So what exactly is his logic?
Previously, he looked at cycle patterns and the proportion of profitable addresses—that was the macro perspective.
Now he’s switched to a micro “market maker clears longs, then rebuilds” game-theory perspective.
What does that mean?
The $62,000 level isn’t something derived from a model. It’s a direct response to the current leveraged structure.
The market maker’s playbook might look like this:
First, push downward through $61,000—trigger the stop-loss orders of those $20 billion in long positions—then pick up enough inventory at the low price—and finally rally it up, rebuilding at the new bottom.
The bottom can still hold, but the path to reaching it may involve a targeted sweep designed to flush out leverage.
Bottom and liquidation are two sides of the same coin.
If you believe $62,000 is the bottom and you go all-in with orders right away, it might not be the optimal solution.
A better strategy would be to wait for that pin that pierces $61,000 to appear.
Let the market maker fire the last bullet for you, and then you enter.
The bottom is reached—but the road isn’t flat. There’s a $20 billion “speed bump” waiting for the long side.
What do you think? Will the $61,000 longs be targeted for liquidation, or is Killa manufacturing panic?
