Bitcoin price analysis amid midterm uncertainty, ETF inflows, and hardware wallet security concerns
Ivan on Tech delivers a solo live stream covering Bitcoin's price action, ETF flows, CoreWeave's financial stress, Ledger security vulnerabilities, privacy coin trends, and a Q&A session.
Summary
Ivan on Tech opens with Bitcoin trading below its May high, arguing this is not yet a confirmed bearish signal since the weekly candle has not closed. He attributes current market nervousness primarily to US midterm election uncertainty, predicting a relief rally once results are known. The stream highlights a significant ETF inflow of over $526 million — the largest seen during October — as a bullish signal, alongside concerns about CoreWeave's financial health, citing credit default swap activity and a 43% stock decline since August, while noting Goldman Sachs has upgraded the stock to a buy. Serious hardware wallet security issues with Ledger are also covered, citing researcher Mark Carpellis's warnings about sophisticated implants, and used to argue that ETF custody may be more practical for larger holders than self-custody. The episode briefly addresses Monero versus Zcash, arguing that trend direction matters more than technical privacy features, and closes with an extended defence of the 200-week Moving Average as superior to four-year cycle theory.
Key Takeaways
FULL TRANSCRIPT
Bitcoin price action and the weekly close
Ivan: Welcome to another episode. As you can see right now, Bitcoin is below the May high. We're below the May high. The week of course hasn't closed — the week just opened — but currently Bitcoin price is a bit shaky. As soon as the Bitcoin price is a bit shaky, as soon as we go down a bit, people come out. They're afraid. They're worried. Of course, we're here with our daily shows to give you some insight about what I'm doing and how I'm thinking. Welcome everyone watching live. Big shout out to Guzman.
Bitcoin is currently down, but number one, the week has not closed. Even if we go lower here, it's still bullish. Why? Because we are in a bull trend, as you can see here on the weekly. And also the current nervousness has a lot to do with the midterms. As soon as the midterms are out of the way, you will have a fantastic pump in the stock market. For all of you who don't know, midterms happen on November 3rd. So this is in two weeks. We now have this wall of worry around the midterms — what's going to be Democrat, what's going to be Republican, how cooked is Trump, will there be investigations? There are probably many investigations that are going to happen, but the markets don't like uncertainty. So until midterms, I do expect a bit of volatility, a bit of uncertainty, especially if we don't see a nice confident pump here for Bitcoin towards the 87K level. There's a good chance that we're in this swamp until the midterms.
So if we close below and go something like this, then the expectation is that until the midterms we're likely going to be somewhere here. But the hope for the ultra bullish scenario — where we actually get a bounce here from the May high — it's still not dead because the week has not closed below. So if we close below and go from ultra bullish to just bullish, then I expect continuation towards the upside after the midterms, because markets like certainty. They want to know who it is. Two weeks until midterms, then resolution, then certainty, and then likely boop — Valhalla for the stock market, Valhalla for Bitcoin.
All resolutions are likely to be bullish. Why? Because we've had a year of the bear. It's already a year since last October. We had people pricing in Rectober. Last year was Rectober. This year it's likely going to be different, but let's see how it plays out.
ETF inflows hit multi-month high
The ETF has had the biggest inflow in a very long time — basically the whole of October hasn't seen this kind of inflow. 600 million into BlackRock, a bit of outflow in other ETFs, and all in all plus $526 million yesterday in the ETF. Fantastic.
CoreWeave and the AI bubble
Also, something to keep an eye on — another wall of worry is in the stock market with CoreWeave. If you've been following the stock market news, if you've been following what people are saying about AI on social media, you know that CoreWeave is a bit of a questionable company currently, because there are different instruments — credit default swaps — that are signalling that it may go bankrupt. If you look at how people are hedging the risk with CoreWeave by buying credit default swaps and other instruments, and also when you look at the yield of their corporate bonds, it's not looking good.
Here's the news: Goldman Sachs came out yesterday and said it is time to be bullish on CoreWeave. You had Gabriella Borges at Goldman Sachs upgrading CoreWeave from neutral to buy, basically setting a price target of $106, down from $139. So still down versus what they had before. But the stock has plunged 43% since August and 24% over the past five trading sessions, amid concerns over market volatility, financing costs, and demand. So as soon as this wall of worry is gone for the stock market with CoreWeave, it would also be a fantastic pump. Should CoreWeave collapse, that is going to be a big problem for the stock market. We don't want to predict it — we just want to react when it happens. But CoreWeave is kind of at the centre of the AI bubble. When people are concerned about the AI bubble, you have to look at what's happening to CoreWeave.
Morgan Stanley also came out saying that the US stock market selloff may be nearing its end. Morgan Stanley strategist Michael Wilson says investors should prepare to buy the dip as the three-month equity correction approaches its final stages.
So at any point in time you will have bearish news and you're going to have bullish news. In this current environment we have the AI collapse as one of the bearish narratives. But the bullish news is that there's still a lot of demand for it, there's still a lot of growth in revenue, and there's still a lot of demand for AI — maybe less than expected, but still a lot. We need to see the earnings. Whenever earnings happen, whenever we see new earnings, that's when normally markets continue pumping, because during the quarter worries build up — a lot of worry, a lot of worry, a lot of worry — then earnings come out and everything looks good and it pumps. That's how it's been for the past four quarters or so. All this discussion about a collapse, a bubble, a bubble, a bubble. Then earnings come out, everything looks great, everything is fantastic, we pump. Then in a few weeks, people are again worried about AI collapse. So earnings is something to watch when it comes to this AI situation.
Ledger security vulnerabilities and the self-custody debate
Now in terms of Ledger — Mark Carpellis is going heavy after Ledger. We discussed it yesterday in our Bullmania private stream. When you look at your self-custody, you have to be a bit careful because there are not many options left. You have Ledger wrecked, you have ColdCard wrecked, you have Trezor also having problems. They had problems when they leaked your private key to their support team — literally when they output your private key to the logs of the app and then the support team could see it. They say that no one was affected, that the support team did not see anything. But you see, there is always some kind of issue with hardware wallets.
Mark Carpellis basically came out and said that with Ledger, he's been trying to warn them for quite some time that someone is really trying to go after their hardware wallet and engineer sophisticated ways to hack it — to basically have sophisticated implants in Ledgers — and they did not listen to him.
What he's been saying is that he noticed these implants already over a year ago, and in the early versions they were quite sloppy and you could really see that someone was trying to hack something. He warned Ledger, they did not do anything, and the hackers made it more and more sophisticated so that finally these implants couldn't even be seen. And that's where all of the latest attacks on Ledger have come from — from some kind of sophisticated attacker really designing the system for implanting a device inside your Ledger so it leaks everything. And yeah, the problem with Ledger is that for some reason recently they don't listen to reports.
There is also a bit of a problem with their products. For example, the Ledger phone — it's a big fat phone they just released in the midst of all of these attacks, and it says "Ledger" on it. Basically, you have your phone, you are in Paris, you take a picture of the Eiffel Tower, and on your phone it says Ledger. You understand? You go to Paris, you love the Eiffel Tower, you bring up your phone, it says Ledger. And in Paris, you have to be very careful. It's kind of like a whole nogales situation. Let me know by the way if you're in France — what's happening in France? Is it third world or first world? Looking at pictures it looks crazy. Let me know if the Twitter reports are overexaggerated or not.
There is some problem with Ledger's thought process where they give you a product that puts you in physical danger — like a phone where it says Ledger. Why would you have a phone that says Ledger? Another thing they had, a few years ago, was a necklace where you could basically put your hardware wallet as a necklace. So people can chop off your neck if they want to take it. I don't know what the hell they're thinking at Ledger. When they had that necklace, that's when I started to consider — wait, do these guys understand crypto? Do they have crypto themselves? Because if you build a product that you don't use yourself, it can never be good. How can you make a necklace with a hardware wallet? Only a person that never used crypto would do such a thing — someone who never experienced the concern you normally have when you have self-custody, how to keep it safe, and so on.
That's why ETFs are winning now — because everything in crypto that is self-custody has a big problem. For people who have bigger accounts, for bigger wealth, ETF makes sense. I know it's not cyberpunk, and maybe when I just started out in crypto I would say, "Oh no, you should only have self-custody." But from experience, being in this industry and seeing how people get wrecked in self-custody versus not self-custody, I've become a bit less cyberpunk. Hopefully this industry will have good self-custody — and you can always do self-custody if you want. That's important.
Should BlackRock go bankrupt, you would be a creditor. You would likely get your money back in one way or another. Bernie Madoff victims, as you know, got like 80–90% back from a pyramid scam, from a Ponzi scam. If your hardware wallet gets hacked, no one cares about you. Literally no one in the world cares about you. If your hardware wallet gets hacked, the police are not going to do anything. They're going to open the case, they're going to close it the next minute. They open it just because they have to because you reported something, and then before you leave the building they've already closed it — because how the hell are they going to find the guy who stole your coin? It's crypto, man. Your coins are gone. How is the police going to find them? They're going to open Etherscan and be like, "Yeah, I don't know how to find them."
Here's the thing. In most cases, if you are a lone victim — let's say you're the only person in your country that lost money — no one will care about you. If BlackRock collapses, some of the wealthiest people in the world have their money there and they're going to come after it, and you can be part of the recovery. That's what happened with FTX. I told you my story with FTX — I actually got more money than I lost because it was in ETH and ETH dumped, so in dollar amount I think I even got more, because FTX was a big project to recover. Imagine you lose your money because Ledger got hacked and you're the only person in your country. Do you think they're going to come after your money? Even if you have a lot of money — like a few hundred thousand — it's still too little for someone to really do a nice recovery. A big process — your money won't even pay the lawyers for a few hours. You understand? This is the problem when you are alone.
That's why we're not super cyberpunk when it comes to this, because we're pragmatic. And also, the older you get, the more pragmatic you are. We all become boomers, guys. Maybe I've become a bit of a boomer to some extent, but from experience — just from experience being in this industry, seeing how people get wrecked in self-custody versus not self-custody — I've become a bit less cyberpunk. Hopefully this industry will have good self-custody, and you can always do self-custody if you want. That's important.
Monero vs Zcash — follow the trend, not the tech
Someone asks why hackers choose Monero instead of Zcash. Well, maybe because they follow the money line and the trend, because Zcash is now in a bear trend and Monero is in a bull. We had a big discussion about Zcash versus Monero in Bullmania on Monday. The conclusion is: you want to be in bull trends, not bear trends. Zcash is now in a bear trend. You don't want to be in a bear asset. You want to be in a bull asset.
It's kind of like with Lighter on Hyperliquid. When Lighter went into a bear trend, we were super bullish on Lighter. As soon as it went bull trend, we said in Bullmania: go to Hyperliquid instead, because it's the same thing — Hyperliquid is bullish, Lighter is bearish. And now Lighter has dumped even more. So you really have to respect the bear trend. Maybe the hackers respect the bear trend in Zcash and say, "I'm not going to be in Zcash. I'm going to be in Monero because Monero is in a bull trend." Maybe that's how it is.
In terms of the tech — it's way above your pay grade to discuss the tech of Monero and Zcash. Don't even try it. I'm a computer scientist, I did computer science for five years, and it's even above my pay grade. So imagine trying to discuss tech when you don't understand anything about it. Don't be too worried about tech. As a computer scientist, I tell you it's above my pay grade to discuss Monero versus Zcash — which one is fully private, this and that. It's for sure above your pay grade. So don't bother. Instead, just look at the trend. Zcash is in a bear trend, so you can move into Monero. That's it. Should it be vice versa, be vice versa. Don't worry too much about the tech.
That's why people lose so much money. They think they're Elon Musk, they think they're Bill Gates. In reality, just look at the chart. Don't worry too much about this and that.
Murad on inflation and the limits of yield
There's some news here. Murad is telling people how to manage their money and that $400,000 a year — which is the yield on $10 million — is not enough to go above inflation. Let's listen to this.
Murad: "I'm sitting here listening to you guys talk about this. I'm like, holy — like, when people go on Twitter and they're like, you know, is $5 million enough to retire? Is $10 million enough to retire?"
Ivan: You know, people on crypto Twitter say, "I'm going to make $10 million and then I'm going to put it in some money market fund or some DeFi app or whatever, and I'm going to make $400,000 per year, which is 4%, and that's it. I'm going to live a good life on $400,000 per year." But they don't understand that the money supply is growing 7–8% per year. So you're actually losing money without doing anything. That's why essentially you have to continue hustling. Even if you have $10 million, you have to continue hustling.
That was his point. I thought this was funny because he also invested everything in memecoins and lost 90% in a year. So here he speaks about inflation eating a few percent per year, but it's better to do memecoins and lose everything in one year. We love Murad, Murad is great, but I don't think he's the correct person to speak about that. You lose a few percent here and there with inflation — okay. But come on, how much did people lose in memecoins this cycle? Come on, man.
Solana's Alpenglow upgrade
There's not too much news. Let's remind about some stuff. Number one, tomorrow — Alpenglow for Solana. That's something. For Solana it's going to be massive. It should be way, way faster — finality from 12 seconds down to 150 milliseconds. But other than that, I don't know what other news there is. No news is good news. Maybe that's how we need to see it.
Q&A session
On NEAR Protocol: NEAR is bullish. You want to be in bullish assets. You don't want to be in bearish assets. NEAR is bullish right now. We want bullish assets. We don't want bearish assets. That's it.
On Hyperliquid: Hyperliquid is also still bullish.
On the S&P 500: SPX went bearish. It's looking quite bad. I wouldn't be in SPX right now because we don't want to be in a bearish asset. And by the way, we did discuss a lot yesterday — when you have a bull flip happen and then a bullish collapse like this, stop losses are super important. We explain all about that, the full system, in Bullmania. No system is 100% bulletproof. Even when you have a bull flip, it could just go down, like what happened here with SPX. It's fine — it's part of the system. That's where you have your stop loss, you lose just a few percent of the trade, and that's it.
Ethena USDe: Still in a bull trend, still up 15% since the bull trend. So far so good.
The 200-week Moving Averages versus four-year cycle theory
Someone asks for a critical stance regarding the game theory behind why a Q2 low would be potentially priced in in a way where a Q4 low could still happen. I don't even think you understand what that means yourself. This Q2 low, Q4 low — I think you're too much into the four-year cycle. We don't worry too much about this. You know, Q2 low in 1997, NASDAQ hit this and that. We just see what the trend is. The trend now is bullish. What's the game theoretic explanation for? How are you going to trade based on it? What's your entry? What's your stop loss? Q2 low, Q4 — don't worry, man. People really overcomplicate here.
Let me tell you how to think about the market. It's very easy. If we are below the 200-week Moving Averages — no matter if it's Q2, no matter if it's Q4, no matter if it's Q3 or Q5 or whatever — if you're around the 200-week Moving Averages, you buy. You buy. It's likely the bottom. If it's at or below the 200-week Moving Averages for big established assets, this is the buy zone. For your shitcoin, it's not the buy zone — your shitcoin may never return. It's only for Bitcoin, big stocks, gold — stuff that you know is not going to die. When those assets go towards the 200-week Moving Averages, you buy in any quarter. That's why we became bullish when we went below — no matter the quarter. Don't worry about the quarter. Don't worry about what Bitcoin did in 2014 or 2017. It's not helping you. It's wrecking you.
We said: it's at the 200-week Moving Averages, we're starting to accumulate. We don't go all in, but we start to accumulate. When we go bull trend on the mainline, we go heavier. That's the way to do it.
Q4 low, Q2 low — to me it's not helpful. Maybe someone can make it work. I've not seen anyone trade successfully based on this kind of stuff. I don't even understand what it means, and I don't think you do either. Don't worry about that. Look at the trend. Look at when we are at the 200-week Moving Averages or lower. I don't know anyone who makes money with this cycle theory. I mean, honestly, I don't know. I know many people do videos about it. Maybe it's some kind of circle jerk where you can pretend to be scientists because you say the word "game theory." You feel scientific. You're like, "Wow, we're discussing game theory." But the only thing you're doing is looking at what Bitcoin did last cycle and the cycle before that. Your whole "game theory," your whole "science," is looking at three data points. How scientific. In the history of Bitcoin, how many cycles have we had? Three, maybe four. What kind of statistical importance is that? Zero.
How many data points do you have? What kind of scientist are you when you have four data points? You make a conclusion from four data points. Now here is where, as a computer scientist, as a real scientist, I need to tell you something. Buying at or below the 200-week Moving Averages is proven by decades across asset classes, across generations, across bull and bear cycles. For assets that don't go to zero — your shitcoin, don't buy it at the 200-week Moving Averages if it's in a bear trend — but Bitcoin, gold, stocks: that's proven. You have a million data points there. When you have a bull trend, it's proven across generations, across decades, across asset classes, across different regimes, over a century of proof that it is working. I have a whole book on this. A century of proof. Legends all agree here.
Cycle theory — what theory do you have? You have three or four cycles. What are you speaking about? You have the theory of gravity and then cycle theory? You're so intellectual. Then you look at it and you have three or four cycles. Instead, the 200-week Moving Averages trends — chef's kiss. And sometimes they overlap. For example, Q4 — we went to risk-off, and four-year cyclists also went to risk-off, so they were lucky that time. At the 200-week Moving Averages during summer, we said it's time to be bullish. Four-year cyclists are still cycling, so I guess they have to be bullish in November or maybe now, according to cycle theory. Big problem.
Anyway, guys, I also think it's interesting to discuss cycle theory. I just — you don't make any money with it. I've not seen anyone make money. When we joke, it's also a live show, so I have to make it entertaining. I have to drive the point home so people understand. If I sound a bit harsh, know that I love you very much. But for your own education, for your own understanding, for your own best, we need to drive the point home heavily. Being a four-year cyclist is horrible because you have three data points and that's it. Instead, look at the timeless things such as buying at or below the 200-week Moving Averages. It's timeless. It has millions of data points across asset classes, across centuries, across different interest rate regimes. So yeah, big shout out.
Someone says: "You are right. I was just worried that too many people are fixated on the four-year cycle, which makes it not quantifiable as you say, but perhaps psychological." Yeah, that's true. That's true. So when, for example, you have October and November — here's the truth. It is very true that many people are going to be mega bullish when even the cyclists say it's time to be bullish. So that is like a catalyst for bullishness. There is a lot of capital just waiting for the cycle to signal bullish. So that could be yes, a boost towards 100K — 100%. But as you can see, it's way better to use timeless stuff like the 200-week Moving Averages. But yes, now that October and November come, four-year cyclists are back, all their money is back, and it's quite a lot of money — many people watch the four-year cycle.
But also, that's why the market cannot accommodate most people. The market cannot make it so that everyone wins together, kumbaya. If most people do something, likely you're going to have a bit of a different outcome, a bit unexpected, something a bit different. I do agree though that yes, as we go into November, the midterms are gone, this whole worry about the midterms is gone, the four-year cycle is now signalling bull, and we go Valhalla, we go 100K, 120K. Chris is going to do his $500 million trade that we're going to be following on MM Crypto.
Guys, thank you very much. Big shout out to Guzman.