Crypto子棋

Why isn’t the coin with the strongest rebound after a crash necessarily the best one to buy?

When I first got into crypto, I was especially obsessed with the strength of rebounds.

After a market crash, whichever coin bounced 20% or 30% first seemed like the strongest to me. I figured big-money players had already rushed back in.

It took me a while to realize that the coins that fall the hardest are often the ones that bounce the hardest, too.

After one market-wide liquidation event, I chased a small-cap coin that rebounded 40% in two hours. It looked far stronger than BTC, but in reality, it had already fallen 70%. Profit-taking by shorts, bargain hunters, and liquidity returning after liquidations had combined to create a sharp relief rally.

Once sentiment stabilized a little, genuine spot buying failed to show up, and the price quickly fell back to its lows.

When looking at a rebound after a crash, don’t focus only on the percentage gain. Look at where it’s rebounding from and what’s driving the move. If a coin falls from 10 to 3 and then rises to 4.2, that’s a 40% gain—but it’s still a long way from its original price. If open interest (OI) rises rapidly during the rebound while spot trading volume doesn’t pick up at the same pace, often all that’s happening is a fresh buildup of leverage, not a recovery in the trend.

True strength means holding up relatively well during a sharp downturn, maintaining higher lows after the rebound, and continuing to outperform BTC—not just posting an impressive percentage gain because it was oversold.

Remember: the size of a rebound measures short-term bounce potential, not the quality of an asset. The first one to bounce may be a strong performer—or it may simply be the one that fell the hardest.

Not sure what to buy in the next market rally? The answer may already be hidden in this one.

Rather than wearing yourself out looking for the next dark horse, take a close look at which coins have surged the most this time—and which have held up best.

When picking strong coins, I mainly look for three traits:

First, when the broader market rises, the coin clearly outperforms BTC and may even break to new highs ahead of it.

Second, when the broader market pulls back, the coin may fall too, but its losses are relatively limited, and it holds key support levels.

Third, and most importantly: as soon as the broader market stabilizes, the coin rebounds first—sometimes recovering its losses even before BTC.

Leading the market once could be luck. Doing it repeatedly is worth paying attention to.
Coins that remain relatively strong through several market corrections are often more likely to attract sustained investor interest.

But one thing needs to be clear: a strong coin isn’t automatically one you should chase at any price.

My approach is to pick the coin first, then wait for a pullback. I watch key support levels and buying pressure, and only step in when the price is right.

Coin selection determines your upside; your entry determines whether you profit or lose.

Real opportunities don’t always need to be predicted in advance. More often than not, the market has already shown us the answer through price action.

Find the strongest coins, wait for the best entry, and make money on what you understand. Let’s go!

Why does the first rebound after a key support level breaks make people let their guard down most easily?

After years of trading, I’ve found that what most often catches people off guard isn’t the first big bearish candle, but the rebound after a breakdown that looks surprisingly strong.

I once saw a daily-chart trend break down, only for the price to rebound quickly and recover almost half of its losses.

I thought it was just a shakeout. I didn’t reduce my position—in fact, I added to it during the rebound. But when the price reached the former support level, it couldn’t climb any higher. A few days later, it fell again, even faster than the first time.

Only later did I understand: once support is decisively broken, the roles often reverse.
Those who bought at the former support are left holding losing positions and may want to exit when the price rebounds to their cost basis. Traders who sold short earlier may also add to their positions there. So the first rebound doesn’t necessarily mean the trend is recovering; it may simply give trapped holders a more graceful way out.

To tell a false breakdown from a weak rebound, the key isn’t whether there’s a bounce—it’s whether the price can reclaim the broken level on higher volume and hold it on a retest. If it only briefly touches the level while volume continues to shrink, it’s more likely a pause before the decline resumes.

Remember: a rebound after a breakdown only proves that some buyers are stepping in. Regaining and holding the level is what proves buyers have taken back control. Don’t mistake a brief breather for a recovered trend.

Why can the price still plunge straight through even when there are huge buy orders sitting on the order book?

When I first started trading small-cap coins, I’d see millions of dollars’ worth of buy orders stacked below the price and feel incredibly reassured: with a buy wall that thick, the big players must be defending the price. If it fell, someone would catch it.

It took me a while to realize that what the order book shows is intent, not a promise.

I once went long on a low-float coin traded through perpetual futures. The orders from the best bid down through the next nine levels were so massive they dwarfed its usual trading volume.

I thought the bottom was locked in. But as soon as the price got close, the buy orders started disappearing, one level at a time. When the real selling hit, the so-called buy wall vanished in seconds.

It turned out those orders could have been dynamic quotes from market makers, or simply a way to create the illusion of support and lure retail traders into entering early.

Even if the buy orders actually get filled, that doesn’t mean anyone is bullish for the long term. A market maker may be holding short positions at the same time, buying spot only to keep inventory neutral. A large trader might also use some of their funds to prop up the order book while gradually unloading tokens at higher prices.

To tell whether support is real, don’t just look at the size of the orders. Check whether trades keep going through when the price reaches them, whether the cancellation rate is high, whether aggressive selling is repeatedly absorbed, and whether the price quickly recovers after the trades are filled.

Remember: money displayed on the order book can be pulled at any time. Real support has to withstand selling pressure. A buy wall can create a sense of security, but the price reaction after trades go through is what really counts.

For now, there’s just one thing to watch: can BTC reclaim $84,000 within a reasonable time?

BTC bounced after touching the 4-hour MA200 near $80,400. The MACD formed a bullish crossover at a low level, suggesting that short-term selling pressure has eased for now.

But the price lost momentum after rising to $83,000. The $83,500–$84,500 range is capped by the previous trading range, the MA30, and the MA120. This is the real dividing line between bulls and bears.

Over the past two days, spot BTC ETFs saw cumulative net outflows of about $729 million. The price didn’t continue to collapse, which shows there is genuine support around $80,000. But ongoing outflows also mean this rebound is unlikely to break straight through $85,000.

I think BTC is more likely to trade sideways between $80,000 and $85,000 for the rest of October. It may first rebound to $84,000, then pull back to $81,000–$82,000, rather than immediately launching into a sustained directional move.

As long as $80,000 holds, BTC could still challenge $85,000–$87,000 after the mid-month correction ends. However, $87,400 is probably already this month’s interim high, and a direct breakout above $90,000 is unlikely.

For now, treat the rise as a rebound. A sustained move above $85,000 would signal a stronger trend; a break below $80,000 would put $77,000–$78,000 in view. The outlook for the rest of October is simple: bottoming first, then recovery. There still isn’t enough capital for a major rally.

Since the BTC rebound started, this is the first time on the daily chart that it has effectively broken below the rising trendline.

Every time there’s a meeting, it falls—though a moderate dip is actually not bad!

Whether it can hold around 82,000–83,000 is crucial; it will directly determine whether this pullback is a normal retracement or if the current phase has already ended.

If the price bottoms out here and quickly reclaims 84,000–85,000, it would suggest this is just a technical shakeout after the rally, and there may still be opportunities to challenge 87,400 again, even pushing toward 90,000.

But if the daily chart closes consecutively below 82,000, and the rebound can’t get back above 83,500, then the structure would shift from “high-point consolidation” to “rebound topping.” The next move would most likely be a pullback to around 80,000, and possibly even a test of the on-chain cost line near 77,000.

I believe there will be resistance around 82,000–83,000, but the first rebound won’t reach much. Only after reclaiming and holding above 85,000 can the short-term trend be considered repaired; otherwise, the rebound is still about pressure relief rather than a reversal.

Lately, I’ve been thinking about which value coins would be the safest to accumulate now and hold through the next bull market.

I took another look at the top 50 tokens by market cap and found that the number of projects with genuinely deflationary tokenomics is shockingly small.

BTC was created to counter excessive money printing, yet most so-called “value coins” still increase their supply or unlock tokens, relying on later investors’ money to absorb early holders’ tokens.

Excluding stablecoins, the projects with genuinely healthy supply structures are mainly BTC, ETH, and BNB. The rest are hard to look at 🤣

BNB deserves special praise here. Its quarterly Auto-Burn steadily reduces the supply, with a long-term goal of cutting it from the initial 200 million tokens to 100 million. Some Gas fees on BNB Chain are also burned.

More importantly, BNB isn’t burned simply to make it deflationary. Trading fees, Launchpool, on-chain Gas, and ecosystem apps all create real demand, forming a virtuous cycle: “platform growth—increased usage—token burns.”

As for tokens like SOL, DOGE, LINK, and HYPE, they still have protocol emissions or future unlocks. Although XRP has a fixed total supply, escrow releases still create selling pressure.

So, looking only at the top 20 by market cap, the ones I’d be most willing to hold for the long term—combining low inflation, real demand, strong liquidity, and a mature ecosystem—are:

BTC, ETH, and BNB.

BTC’s strength is that its supply can’t be changed; ETH’s is its ecosystem value; and BNB’s is that real-world use and ongoing deflation go hand in hand.

Deflation doesn’t guarantee a price increase. But a project with a growing ecosystem and a shrinking token supply at least won’t leave long-term holders constantly footing the bill for new issuance and unlocks.

On that front, BNB really is a project many “value coins” could learn from.

Why a negative funding rate doesn’t mean you can go long and earn “interest” risk-free

When I first started trading futures, I loved looking for coins with negative funding rates.

Shorts pay longs, so you can wait for a rebound and collect funding fees at the same time. It looked like a chance the market was handing out for free.

Only later did I realize that the funding rate isn’t a perk—it’s a measure of how crowded a trade is.

I once went long on a small-cap coin that had been plunging continuously. The funding rate was already deeply negative, and everyone in the group was saying shorts were too crowded and a short squeeze was just around the corner.

I collected fees for a few rounds and made a few dozen USDT, but the coin’s price fell another 30%. That little bit of funding income couldn’t even cover one normal price swing.

More ironically, people kept buying the dip as the price fell. Both long and short positions grew, and the funding rate stayed negative for a long time—but the supposed short squeeze never came.

A negative funding rate only means the perpetual contract is trading below spot, or that demand to short is stronger. It doesn’t mean selling pressure is over. It could reflect extreme sentiment before a reversal, or simply the carrying cost that trend-following shorts are willing to pay.

To decide whether it’s worth going long, you also need to check whether spot buyers are stepping in, whether the price has stopped falling, whether open interest has been flushed out, and whether shorts can still push the price lower after the negative funding rate appears.

Remember: the funding rate tells you which side is more crowded, but it doesn’t tell you which side is about to lose. Taking on major volatility just to earn a little funding is often a case of picking up pennies in interest while losing dollars in principal.

The market has rebounded more than 50% from the bottom. What phase are we in now? Some are calling it a bull market, others a bear-market rally. There’s no shortage of knee-jerk takes, but not many clear-headed answers!

Here’s my take, with some points for everyone to consider and verify as the market unfolds.

My conclusion: This is a strong recovery after a bear market, not a new bull market yet!

$BTC
After falling from $126,000 to $58,000 and then rebounding to $87,000, BTC should still be viewed through a bear-market lens in 2026. The $58,000 level is likely an important bottom, but a cycle bottom has not yet been fully confirmed.

The maximum drawdown in this cycle was about 54%, and the correction was also shorter than a typical full bear market. ETFs have strengthened demand, which may make the bear-market decline shallower, but they change the depth of the drawdown—not eliminate the cycle altogether.

There is support from fund flows, but not enough to justify blindly betting on a rally.

In the first four trading days of October, U.S. spot BTC ETFs saw combined net inflows of about $322 million, suggesting institutions have not exited. But compared with weekly inflows of more than $2 billion in late September, investors’ willingness to chase prices has clearly weakened.

BTC balances on exchanges have fallen to about 2.68 million coins, meaning sell-side supply is shrinking. This is an important reason why $58,000 may have become a medium-term bottom. However, about 74% of holders are back in profit, and long-term holders have also begun taking profits into the rebound.

The $85,000–$88,000 range is the first major resistance zone. The $90,000–$96,700 range will determine whether this recovery can turn into a reversal.

The macro environment also doesn’t support BTC moving straight into a sustained rally.
The 10-year Treasury yield remains near 5.3%, oil prices are close to $100, and the risk of another rate hike before year-end has not gone away.

My base case for the next six months is:

In October, BTC first pushes toward $88,000–$92,000. If sentiment gets especially strong, it may test $96,700, but it will probably struggle to hold above that level on the first attempt.

In the second half of Q4, it pulls back to $80,000–$82,000, with a test of $76,000–$77,000 possible in an extreme scenario. As long as the weekly chart holds above $77,000, BTC could still have a chance to challenge $96,700–$105,000 in Q1 next year.

In short: First push toward $90,000, then a pullback to $80,000, and then we see whether it can reach $100,000.

A true bull market is confirmed not when the price touches $90,000, but when it holds above $96,700–$100,000 on the weekly chart, pulls back without breaking below that range, and ETF inflows resume at a sustained, substantial pace.

At this stage, it’s reasonable to be bullish on the recovery—but don’t mistake a recovery for a sustained bull run. The biggest risk in cycle trading isn’t missing the exact bottom; it’s mistaking a temporary rally for a new bull market when excitement is at its peak.

Why doesn’t a project’s urgent “debunking” necessarily stop the price from falling?

When I first got into crypto, whenever a project faced negative news, the thing I looked forward to most was an official response.

If the team issued a statement saying the address wasn’t theirs, the transfers were just market-making adjustments, or the tokens hadn’t been unlocked early, I’d assume the misunderstanding was cleared up and the price would bounce back right away.

It took a few hard lessons to realize that statements can explain the team’s position, but on-chain token holdings determine selling pressure.

I once held a project that plunged. The team posted one reassuring statement after another, and the community said the rumors were malicious.

After reading them, I not only held on but also bought more during a rebound. Later, I found out that although the disputed address wasn’t an official wallet, it had financial ties to early investors and market makers. The tokens hadn’t been dumped all at once, either—they were spread across multiple addresses and sold gradually. The team hadn’t told an outright lie, but it hadn’t shared the whole story, either.

In situations like this, don’t rush to take sides. Look at what can be verified: where the tokens came from, whether the movements comply with unlock rules, whether they ultimately flowed into exchanges, whether spot selling pressure has eased, and whether the team is willing to disclose all the addresses and their purposes.

What the market really cares about isn’t who won an argument in the group chat, but who is still selling tokens.

Remember: debunking rumors can calm nerves, but it can’t make selling pressure disappear. When written explanations conflict with the flow of funds, trust the on-chain token movements first.

$BTC is back near $87,000, but this time things are a little different from the last.

The first surge to $87,400 was followed by a quick pullback, showing that there was heavy selling pressure from trapped holders and long-term holders above.

But during the pullback, BTC held firmly between $83,000 and $84,000, while its daily lows continued to rise. Now it is approaching the previous high again, suggesting that selling pressure is gradually being absorbed—not that the bulls have already left.

Across the first two trading days of this month, spot ETFs recorded combined net inflows of $134.4 million. Weak nonfarm payrolls have also lowered the odds of an October rate hike, making the macro backdrop somewhat favorable in the short term. However, ETF inflows are still not especially strong, and Treasury yields remain elevated. So we can’t focus only on an intraday break above resistance; the daily close matters.

The next steps are clear:
A high-volume breakout above $87,400 and a hold above $88,000 would confirm a valid breakout on the daily chart. The initial target would be $90,000–$93,000, with $96,000 in view beyond that.

If price surges and then pulls back again, breaking below $85,000, that would mean the selling pressure overhead has not yet been absorbed, and price could revisit $83,000. A break below $82,000 would invalidate the short-term breakout thesis.

My view: the odds of a successful second test of $87,000 are higher than they were on the first attempt. But until price holds above $88,000, this is still just a test—not the start of a sustained rally. True strength isn’t just breaking higher; it’s being able to hold those gains.

Two consecutive $BTC shocks failed to break 88,000—are we still in the process of building energy, or is this rebound round already nearing the end?

My take: There is still room for a short-term push higher, but at this stage we can only define it as a strong rebound within a bear market. We can’t confirm a bullish reversal yet.

Technically, BTC has been consolidating at the high end of 83,000 to 87,000. The daily chart holds above key moving averages, RSI is around 63, and there’s no obvious overheating.

However, MACD momentum looks weak, and trading volume has been steadily declining—suggesting the bulls still control the market, but they lack incremental capital to complete a breakout.

Between 83,000 and 86,000, about 1.07 million BTC worth of chips have accumulated. New funds are building positions here, and trapped holders are also finding an exit here. Price keeps oscillating back and forth; at its core, this is absorbing sell pressure.

For the first two trading days, ETFs saw total net inflows of $134.4 million. Institutions are still taking in supply, but compared with the roughly $2.4 billion net inflow in a single week in late September, the力度 is clearly weaker.

Expectations for the Fed pausing rate hikes in October are heating up, and the Nasdaq is also rising. The issue is that the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield is still around 5.28%, so liquidity hasn’t truly loosened.

In the first half of October, it’s likely to continue churning in the 83,000–88,000 range and then choose a direction. The 14-day CPI will be the first catalyst!

If it trades with volume and firmly holds above 88,000, the target would be 90,000–93,000. If it breaks out but then falls back to 85,000, we’d still treat it as range trading. If it breaks below 82,000, downside would be 79,000–80,000. If 76,000 is lost, this round of mid-term repair would basically be over.

You can be moderately bullish now, but it’s not suitable to chase. For BTC to open up upside potential for Q4, ETFs need to resume strong inflows, and 88,000 must truly turn into support.

Why does liquidity get better after a coin is listed on a futures contract, yet the price can become more fragile?

When I first entered the crypto world, I always treated the listing of futures contracts as pure good news: more traders, higher trading volume, and more new capital getting attracted—so the price should be easier to push up.

Later, I realized that futures bring not only more buying pressure, but also more convenient tools for shorting, along with more efficient liquidation mechanisms for the market.

I once chased a small coin that had just launched perpetual futures.
After opening, trading volume exploded and the price surged quickly. People in the group said this meant big capital was coming in—but spot depth didn’t improve noticeably. What actually increased was leverage positions.

When the funding rate rises and OI keeps piling up, the main players only need to break through one key level. Then long stop-losses and liquidations automatically turn into a continuous stream of sell orders.

After the price starts falling, shorts continue to pile in. The order book looks lively, but in reality most of the trades are leverage positions harvesting each other. A coin can trade billions of dollars every day, yet there may not be much real spot demand willing to hold and absorb it long term.

So to judge whether a coin is strong or weak after futures are listed, you can’t look only at trading volume. You also need to check whether spot is increasing volume in sync, whether the funding rate is getting overheated, whether OI growth is disconnected from market capitalization, and where large positions are concentrated across liquidation price bands.

Remember: futures improve trading efficiency, not asset value. Without real spot bid to absorb it, “prosperity” only makes rallies faster—and makes pullbacks more likely to turn into an automatically executed cascade of liquidations.

Last night the Nasdaq hit a new high, yet BTC failed to break higher and fell back again—where does it go next?

Although both US stocks and BTC are risk assets, the money behind them is not the same. US stocks have support from AI orders, corporate earnings, and buybacks—investors are willing to chase for certainty.

BTC rose from $57,800 to $87,000, relying more on ETF inflows, short covering, and sentiment recovery. When it reached the $85,000–$88,000 range, trapped positions and bottom profit-taking were both cashed out at the same time, making further upside harder.

In the 4-hour chart, both attempts to push through $87,000 were suppressed and pulled back, but the price is still holding above $83,800–$84,200. MA120 and MA200 continue to slope upward.

So this isn’t a top—it's a high-level rotation after a failed breakout.

ETFs are still seeing capital inflows, but BTC has been unable to decisively move above $87,000 for a long time. That suggests institutions have not pulled out, yet selling pressure overhead is heavier than expected.

Next, just watch three levels:
$86,000–$87,400 is the resistance zone;
$83,800–$84,200 is the first support;
$81,500–$82,000 is the trend line of defense.

A volume-backed hold above $87,400 would confirm a turn for the strong. If US stocks and ETFs keep strengthening, but BTC breaks below $82,000, that would be the true weakness signal.

Whether the Fed will continue to hike rates in October is now only a question of the September CPI on October 14.

So far, the Nonfarm Payrolls added just 29,000 jobs; the unemployment rate has risen to 4.2%, while wage growth year over year has fallen to 3.0%. Core PCE is also below expectations.

With inflation cooling across employment, wages, and the demand side, the probability of a rate hike in October has already dropped to about 14%.

I expect the September CPI year over year to be 3.5%—3.6%, with core CPI around 2.4%.

Headline inflation could rise due to a rebound in oil prices, but core inflation remains relatively mild. After employment clearly weakens, the Fed will find it difficult to keep hiking rates continuously driven solely by energy-related inflation.

If the core CPI monthly rate does not exceed 0.3%, the probability of an October hike is expected to stay at 10%—20%. If it reaches 0.4% or higher, the probability could rebound to 30%—45%. If the core monthly rate is no higher than 0.2%, the probability of a hike may fall to below 5%.

My baseline view: the probability of pausing in October is about 85%, and the probability of a hike is about 15%. What really needs to be guarded against is not a sudden rate hike in October, but oil prices continuing to rise and forcing the Fed to move the rate hike implied by the dot plot to December.

US nonfarm comes in unexpectedly strong for BTC as it surges toward $870,000: what truly changes is the odds for October rate hikes!

In September, nonfarm payrolls added only 29,000 jobs, far below the expected 90,000; the unemployment rate rose to 4.2%, and year-over-year average hourly earnings fell to 3.0%.

On top of that, revisions to the prior two months’ employment data show that the cooling in U.S. labor has already stopped being just a one-month noise—it’s become a sustained trend.

With labor market weakness, keeping rate hikes going could magnify the downside risk to the economy; a slowdown in wage growth also eases pressure for service inflation to rebound again.

Pausing rate hikes in October has effectively become the market’s baseline scenario.

However, core inflation is still around 3%, and oil prices and geopolitical risks have not gone away—so it’s still too early to discuss rate cuts.

For BTC, weak employment data is a near-term tailwind: Treasury yields and the dollar come under pressure, risk assets get breathing room. After BTC breaks $85,500, stop-losses for shorts are triggered and the price quickly pushes up to $87,000.

That said, weak data isn’t only positive.

If upcoming economic indicators keep deteriorating, what the market will be pricing in won’t be “no more rate hikes,” but rather a recession. If U.S. stocks open strong and then fade, BTC could also see “buy-the-rumor, sell-the-news” profit-taking.

Next, focus on several key levels:

$874,000–$880,000 is the main resistance zone. If it can build volume and hold above that level, the upside could target $900,000–$930,000.

$855,000 is the short-term strength/weakness line. Holding it would indicate that the breakout is valid.

A break below $830,000–$840,000 would suggest upside momentum is weakening; losing $820,000 would mean this nonfarm tailwind has basically been fully priced in.

My view is that the pronounced weakening in the labor market significantly reduces the risk of continued rate hikes in October. The probability of testing $900,000 this month is rising—but how much BTC rallies after the data is released may not be the key. What matters is whether, after the U.S. market opens, it can hold above $85,500 and turn $88,000 into support. That will determine whether this move is the start of a trend—or simply the兑现 (profit-taking) of the bullish news.

Why a Sharp Drop in Coin Price and a Sudden Surge in Open Interest (OI) Don’t Mean “The Whales Are Bottom-Fishing”?

When I first started trading perpetual contracts, I saw a coin falling while its OI was surging. My first reaction was: with so much capital entering the market, someone must be picking up at the lows—an upswing should be coming soon.

Later I realized: OI only tells you that new positions are being added. It doesn’t tell you who is long or who is short, and it doesn’t guarantee that the money entering is “smart money.”

I used to bottom-fish like this.

The price had been falling for a while, while open interest kept hitting new highs. Everyone in the group said, “The whales are building positions against the trend.”

I followed and went long. But the price kept dropping, and the funding rate quickly turned negative. Only during the review did I find out that in the newly added OI, there were both trend-following shorts and long positions that kept trying to bottom-fish. The more the longs kept buying the dip, the more stop-losses and liquidations—ironically—became fuel for the next leg lower.

To judge OI, you must combine it with price, trading volume, funding rates, and liquidation data.

If price is rising and OI is increasing, it could mean trend-based adding. If price is falling and OI is increasing, it could be shorts actively attacking—or it could be longs trying to catch the falling knife. Only when price stops falling and spot shows real absorption, or when high-leverage positions have been fully “washed out,” will the signal be more credible.

Looking at just one indicator is like only hearing that chips in a casino have increased, but not knowing which side everyone bet on.

Remember: an OI explosion means the battle is intensifying—it doesn’t mean a bottom has already formed. Before the price is confirmed, what’s sometimes called “whales entering” may simply be more people lining up to become the next batch of liquidity.

Just after I finished saying it last night: Q4 is not about whether “a three-day bullish streak” can keep rising. Instead, we’re watching whether BTC can break above $85500—$88000, turning the rebound into a reversal.

Today, BTC hit a high of $868000. The first resistance at $85500 has been cleared, but we’re still one last step away from the core resistance at $87400 and $88000.

The logic behind this rally isn’t complicated:

The U.S. core PCE came in below expectations, and the probability of the Fed continuing rate hikes in October has dropped to below 25%; the 10-year Treasury yield fell back from around 5.34%, U.S. stocks ended a three-day decline, and risk appetite has warmed up.

After BTC broke above $85500, it also triggered short liquidations, and ultimately led to a rapid surge.

So the call from last night—“test the resistance to the upside first in October”—has been fulfilled. But we still can’t rush to declare a reversal.

The reason is that over the past two days, the spot Bitcoin ETF combined net outflow has exceeded $200 million. This suggests this green candle was mainly driven by macro expectation repair and short-covering, not by continuous institutional accumulation. Without spot ETF buying to back it up, price may still see a spike-and-fade near $88000.

Next, we’ll only look at two possible scenarios:

If BTC breaks through $88000 with volume and holds $85500 during the pullback, then in the short term there’s a chance to keep pushing toward $90000—$93000, and the Q4 market will move from a rebound stage into a breakout phase.

If $87400—$88000 keeps failing and price falls back below $85500 again, it means this rally was still an emotional push before the resistance zone. After that, it’s highly likely we’ll see a pullback and a rotation to $82000—$84000.

The big direction from last night wasn’t wrong, but the market has only passed the first checkpoint. Real strength isn’t how high it spikes during the day—it’s whether, after breaking $88000, it can’t fall back.

Why, after making positions public, does it become even harder for people to admit they were wrong?

After years of trading, I’ve found that once you put your position out there, it’s no longer just about money—it adds another layer: pride.

If you secretly buy the wrong thing, stopping out only means your account is a bit smaller. But if you publicly call bullish and then admit you were wrong, it feels like you’re admitting your judgment failed in front of everyone.

So when the price falls, the first reaction isn’t to re-evaluate—it’s to keep hunting for good news, add reasoning, and even increase the position to prove that you’ll ultimately be right.

I’ve suffered this myself before.

After buying a project, I posted several bullish pieces on social media. Later, the data weakened and the price broke down. In my heart, I was already starting to doubt, but I still didn’t want to exit.

Because selling doesn’t just mean negating the trade—it feels like negating what I said before. In the end, I held a heavier and heavier position, grew more and more certain in my view, yet my account became increasingly honest.

Public expression in itself isn’t wrong, but trading must preserve the right to correct mistakes.

Your view only represents the information you had at the time—it isn’t a lifelong vow. The truly responsible approach is to write down your invalidation conditions in advance. Once the conditions are triggered, you update your judgment—not by packaging losses as “faith” just to maintain your persona.

The market won’t change its direction because you have more followers or your tone is firm.

Remember: the position fears not just being seen by the market, but being held hostage by your own pride. Being willing to go public as bullish isn’t really the point. After your conditions fail, admitting you were wrong publicly—that’s real trading discipline.

Just now, $BTC suddenly surged for no reason—mainly because the inflation data that was just released came in far below expectations!

After the data release, the probability of a Fed rate hike in October dropped markedly, U.S. Treasury yields fell back, and U.S. stock index futures strengthened.

Technically, after BTC stopped falling, the lows kept being lifted. A 4-hour breakout on increased volume pushed through the descending trendline and it has re-entered above the short-term moving averages. The upside structure looks healthier than a move driven purely by short-covering.

Liquidity is also cooperating: spot ETFs have seen net inflows for nine consecutive trading days, while exchange BTC has seen net outflows over the same period—meaning the amount of spot supply available for short-term selling has been reduced.

However, $85,000 itself is a high-density liquidity/position area.

Once price holds above $85,000, first look at $86,500–$87,400; only with a breakout above $87,400 on increased volume will there be an opportunity to test $89,000–$90,000.

If it slips back to $84,000, treat it as a rebound within the range; if it breaks below $83,000, then this breakout will be considered a failure.

There will likely be another push afterward—possibly even more than one—but “another push” doesn’t mean it has already reversed. The real confirmation is whether BTC can turn $85,000 from resistance into support.