Looking back now, the resistance here is still very obvious In the 1h timeframe, it broke through the key level of 3000 three times but didn't go up In the 4h timeframe, this lightning rod, trading volume, and open interest all reached their peak but failed to break through The inducement is over, this is the opportunity for bears!!! $ETH #ETH走势分析
1. Epstein files partially disclosed, 1200 victims! A large number of explicit photos, truly extravagant, while Trump really just went to drink cola!
3. Solana version of Peppa $Peppa peaked at 1.5m, 19x, Tard $Tard peaked at 300k, 7x
4. Arthur Hayes' lengthy essay: The Fed's new RMP is essentially QE, with large-scale money printing commencing, Bitcoin will soon return to $124,000, then $200,000
5. Citibank: $BTC will rise 62% to $143,000 next year, CryptoQuant: falling below the 365-day moving average indicates a bear market, seeing $56,000 - $73,000 #巨鲸动向
Recently, a piece of news in the crypto circle has sparked heated discussion—renowned analyst Tom Lee presented a set of target prices at an important industry conference: Bitcoin at 300,000, Ethereum at 20,000, with a timeline pointing to 2026. Once the news broke, many investors' eyes lit up, eager to go all-in immediately. But upon reflection, there are many traps behind this that are worth being cautious of. Tom Lee's judgment is not baseless. From a macro perspective, after three years of tightening, the Federal Reserve has shifted its tone, and the rate cut cycle has begun. The US dollar is under pressure, and in this environment, Bitcoin's appeal as a safe-haven asset has indeed increased. Looking at market participants—institutional funds have become the main force. Just considering the spot Bitcoin ETF alone, it has absorbed over $54.75 billion in net inflows, directly changing the market sentiment. Volatility has been suppressed, speculative elements have diminished, and allocation attributes have intensified. On the supply side, there are also factors— the 2025 halving event will reduce new coin issuance, exchange reserves continue to decline, and supply-demand dynamics are tilting. These are real fundamental variables. The problem is, retail investors are most likely to get caught here. First, they tend to compress long-term outlooks into short-term actions. Tom Lee is talking about next year, not next week. Currently, the market is still repeatedly testing the bottom zone, but many people, after hearing this, start to leverage up and rush in, only to be harvested by short-term fluctuations. Second, they overlook structural risks. Institutional dominance has indeed increased market stability, but it also means retail voices are weaker. Once the trend reverses, forced liquidations will be more intense.
Recently, a piece of news in the crypto circle has sparked heated discussion—renowned analyst Tom Lee presented a set of target prices at an important industry conference: Bitcoin at 300,000, Ethereum at 20,000, with a timeline pointing to 2026. Once the news broke, many investors' eyes lit up, eager to go all-in immediately. But upon reflection, there are many traps behind this that are worth being cautious of. Tom Lee's judgment is not baseless. From a macro perspective, after three years of tightening, the Federal Reserve has shifted its tone, and the rate cut cycle has begun. The US dollar is under pressure, and in this environment, Bitcoin's appeal as a safe-haven asset has indeed increased. Looking at market participants—institutional funds have become the main force. Just considering the spot Bitcoin ETF alone, it has absorbed over $54.75 billion in net inflows, directly changing the market sentiment. Volatility has been suppressed, speculative elements have diminished, and allocation attributes have intensified. On the supply side, there are also factors— the 2025 halving event will reduce new coin issuance, exchange reserves continue to decline, and supply-demand dynamics are tilting. These are real fundamental variables. The problem is, retail investors are most likely to get caught here. First, they tend to compress long-term outlooks into short-term actions. Tom Lee is talking about next year, not next week. Currently, the market is still repeatedly testing the bottom zone, but many people, after hearing this, start to leverage up and rush in, only to be harvested by short-term fluctuations. Second, they overlook structural risks. Institutional dominance has indeed increased market stability, but it also means retail voices are weaker. Once the trend reverses, forced liquidations will be more intense.
Recently, a piece of news in the crypto circle has sparked heated discussion—renowned analyst Tom Lee presented a set of target prices at an important industry conference: Bitcoin at 300,000, Ethereum at 20,000, with a timeline pointing to 2026. Once the news broke, many investors' eyes lit up, eager to go all-in immediately. But upon reflection, there are many traps behind this that are worth being cautious of. Tom Lee's judgment is not baseless. From a macro perspective, after three years of tightening, the Federal Reserve has shifted its tone, and the rate cut cycle has begun. The US dollar is under pressure, and in this environment, Bitcoin's appeal as a safe-haven asset has indeed increased. Looking at market participants—institutional funds have become the main force. Just considering the spot Bitcoin ETF alone, it has absorbed over $54.75 billion in net inflows, directly changing the market sentiment. Volatility has been suppressed, speculative elements have diminished, and allocation attributes have intensified. On the supply side, there are also factors— the 2025 halving event will reduce new coin issuance, exchange reserves continue to decline, and supply-demand dynamics are tilting. These are real fundamental variables. The problem is, retail investors are most likely to get caught here. First, they tend to compress long-term outlooks into short-term actions. Tom Lee is talking about next year, not next week. Currently, the market is still repeatedly testing the bottom zone, but many people, after hearing this, start to leverage up and rush in, only to be harvested by short-term fluctuations. Second, they overlook structural risks. Institutional dominance has indeed increased market stability, but it also means retail voices are weaker. Once the trend reverses, forced liquidations will be more intense.