Bloomberg Intelligence's senior macro strategist, Mike McGlone, raised his bearish forecast for Bitcoin (BTC) this week from $10,000 to around $28,000, after critics publicly challenged his initial estimate, deemed alarmist and damaging to investor positioning.

This episode has reignited a broader debate on the responsibility of analysts in light of reflexive markets such as cryptocurrencies.

McGlone's initial target of $10,000, put forward in a post on February 16 on X, presented Bitcoin as a high-beta risky asset likely to revert to its pre-pandemic levels if U.S. stocks reached a peak followed by a recession.

He claimed that the post-2008 "buy the dip" regime may be disintegrating.

What happened

McGlone then highlighted the level of $28,000 as a statistically more probable scenario, relying on the historical distribution of prices.

According to him, the modal price of Bitcoin – the level at which it has been most frequently traded – is closer to $28,000 than the average of $66,000 since 2023. He maintained that his analysis "indicates why one should not buy Bitcoin or most risky assets."

This revision followed a public challenge from Jason Fernandes, co-founder of AdLunam and market analyst, who requested a debate on both X and LinkedIn. McGlone liked the post but did not accept the debate.

Also read: Ledn Completes First Bitcoin-Backed Bond Sale After Liquidating 25% Of Loans During Price Crash

Why it matters

Fernandes told CoinDesk that his fundamental critique remains unchanged. "$28,000 is obviously more realistic than $10,000," he stated, "Proportionally, fewer things need to go wrong to reach $28,000 than $10,000."

He had previously estimated that a more likely adjustment would be in the range of $40,000 to $50,000, in the absence of a systemic liquidity shock – thus placing McGlone's new forecast closer to its lower bound.

The founder of Quantum Economics, Mati Greenspan, dismissed the initial forecast of $10,000 as "plainly ludicrous," emphasizing that extraordinary conditions would be needed for an asset generating monthly trading volumes of several trillion dollars to fall to a market capitalization of $200 billion. He considered $28,000 still unlikely, although he could not completely exclude this scenario.

At the heart of the dispute is the question of whether deterministic price forecasts from institutional analysts can truly distort positioning in markets known to react to public sentiment. Fernandes argues that an "alarmist framework" endangers real capital in reflexive crypto markets – a point that McGlone did not directly address.

Next read: Georgian Fund Manager Walks Free After Embezzling $40M In Bitcoin From Ex-PM