Ivan on Tech analyzes Bitcoin's rejection, the new Fed chair's policy shift, and various crypto market developments
Ivan on Tech solo market analysis covering Bitcoin price action, Federal Reserve policy, MicroStrategy, Illinois crypto tax law, SBF pardon efforts, and viewer Q&A.
Summary
Ivan (Ivan on Tech) opens with Bitcoin's rejection at the $65,000 resistance level and explains why, as a long-term accumulator, lower prices are welcome rather than alarming. He covers a speech by Kevin Warsh (presented in the episode as the new Federal Reserve Chair), who signaled no rate cuts, no forward guidance, and a preference for letting financial markets speak for themselves — a significant policy shift from recent Fed practice. Ivan also discusses MicroStrategy's (which he calls "Stretch") growing vulnerability to a Soros-style peg attack — noting the stock is currently around $89 against a target peg of $100 — Illinois's new 0.2% crypto transaction tax (which he calls the most punitive in US history), the bipartisan Senate resolution opposing an SBF pardon, and Kentucky's lawsuits against prediction market platforms Kalshi and Polymarket for unlicensed sports gambling. The episode also includes extended Q&A covering the SpaceX token's bearish hourly trend, ICP versus Near, and Ivan's broader argument that crypto assets pump via market maker coordination rather than organic demand.
Key Takeaways
FULL TRANSCRIPT
Bitcoin's Rejection at $65K and the Accumulation Mindset
Ivan: Welcome to another episode. As you can see right now, Bitcoin is getting rejected. We spoke about the rejection yesterday — it looked like we are getting rejected by this previous support, which is now resistance at $65,000. We did go all the way up to $67,000, but then the bears pushed us back into the buy zone.
As you know, we are in such a nice position now because we have been risk-off and bearish since October, so lower prices for us are actually good. People get so confused and so surprised sometimes because we are both bullish but we also love lower prices — because we're just DCA-ing into this buy zone. We expect $40K, we expect $50K. All of that can happen, but people really don't get it. "Ivan, how can you be bullish and expect a bit lower price?" This is super simple. If you think about anything else — when you have an asset that you are bullish on long-term and you get a discount, you love it. You go to Black Friday, you buy an Xbox, a PlayStation, you love it. But for some reason with crypto, with assets, it's very different, because most people have no strategy. They bought very high. They did not sell in time. So now they have no money to buy more. They're just praying and begging that their bags will return. And guess what? Later this year and next year, they are likely to start returning. But because we have a big fat war chest to deploy, I love that we are going down.
I'm also bullish here — the buy zone is going to be so nice. But listen, we're still above the 200-day exponential moving average. We still have a bit of support at the 200-week, but it's very likely that we just continue lower here until $50K and $40K, because as you know, we're still in a macro bear trend — macro, macro, macro bear trend, which is super bearish. We have a high, a lower high, a lower high.
New Fed Chair Kevin Warsh: No Cuts, No Guidance
Overall, the market yesterday got a bit disappointed because Kevin Warsh had his first speech and he said that he's not going to cut. He is going to be careful — inflation is still too high, so he cannot cut. He says, "We will fix five years of misses on inflation," basically saying that the previous Fed has failed.
The Fed will no longer tell you in advance what it plans to do with interest rates. This is quite interesting because in the past the Fed gave some kind of guidance. For example, if the Fed thought that in the coming months and quarters they would cut or hike, they would give some kind of guidance on how they were thinking. But currently they're not doing that. From now on, Warsh is saying no more — we're not going to say anything about how we're thinking, because we want to use the financial markets as the signal. We don't want to distort the signal. Because if we start saying too much — "Hey guys, we're going to do this and that" — we will distort the financial market and we lose that signal. So he watches stock market prices more than anything else when making decisions.
Interest rates are hurting the housing market but are not slowing down financial markets. So all in all, no cuts. We get no cuts because stocks are pumping. Maybe here is where Trump comes in with another Iran situation to dump the stock so he can cut or something. It's going to be interesting.
All 19 members at the table agreed not to raise rates — at least they're not raising. The 2% inflation target is not changing. Warsh refused to say whether bond yields rising after today's decision concerned him. Basically, he's just focused on inflation for now. He also refused to say whether he has spoken to Trump since becoming Fed chair. Likely yes — of course, for Trump this Fed stuff is super important.
So the markets obviously did not really like it. The market wanted the pump instead. We got no cut. The Dow Jones went down a bit. Everything went down a bit. It's not as bad as it looks because they zoom in too much on the y-axis. But still, the market wanted something a bit more bullish. The S&P was down yesterday, but today it's back up. NASDAQ is also back up. Everything is back up. So the Fed doesn't even have to cut rates — we pump anyway. There's so much bullishness that the Fed is just saying, "Listen, we're not cutting and we don't know if we're going to cut." But Bitcoin really needs the cut. That's the thing. Stocks don't need the cut, but Bitcoin really needs the cut. Someone that would really benefit from a rate cut is Bitcoin. And currently we're getting leapfrogged by AI, by tech — NASDAQ, S&P, everything is pumping. Bitcoin is not really pumping. Bitcoin is consolidating.
MicroStrategy ("Stretch") and BlackRock Competition
It's really seen across the board, both when it comes to crypto assets, but then also look at MicroStrategy. MicroStrategy is dead. Look at Stretch — it's stretching someone's donut to this thing. You know what I mean? It's so bad. They promise 11% yearly yield, but now the stock is down 11%. So you're basically break-even if you bought it. Even if you get the yield, you still just break even for taking a massive risk when you could have bought the NASDAQ or something. We've always been very, very skeptical of Stretch — probably the most skeptical on Stretch ever. Anytime people ask me about Stretch, I'm telling you: stay out. It's not worth it.
And also now Stretch has new competition — big competition, insane competition from BlackRock. BlackRock just launched IBIT, a Bitcoin ETF that sells call options to generate monthly income with 70% upside retention. So here you also have Bitcoin exposure and you have mid-to-high-teens yield from BlackRock. So listen, it's BlackRock. You can choose either: if you want exposure to Bitcoin and yield, BlackRock, or you can choose Sailor. And for most people, the choice is clear.
With Sailor's Ponzinomic structure, it's a bit different, because with Sailor he wants to peg at $100 and then pay you a dividend every month. And whenever you peg something, it's going to be attacked. They're going to Soros the crap out of Sailor. Just like Soros attacked the British pound when it was pegged — when you have a peg, it's going to be attacked. It's all about what kind of reserves you have, what kind of financial muscles you have to keep the peg. In the past you could have gold reserves, currency reserves, but Soros still attacked the British pound and broke the reserve. And someone is probably now Soros-ing the crap out of Sailor, because Sailor is saying, "We have $100, which is our peg. We peg Stretch to $100." What kind of financial reserves does he have to keep it there? It is the yield. He can increase the yield — for example, now we're at $89. He could increase the yield from 11% maybe to 15%. So now there are more people buying Stretch to bring it back up to $100. But how much money do you have? Because when you increase the yield, you now have to pay it to all Stretch holders, not just new ones. You have to pay all Stretch holders. So yeah, it's going to be super interesting.
I think it's good that we have an answer now. I think it's needed for the next bull market that we figure this out with Stretch. It's similar to Luna, because they also had the peg. And guys, whenever you have a peg that is not backed one-to-one — a stablecoin peg is backed one-to-one, meaning you have $1 for each stablecoin and you don't issue the stablecoin if you don't have the dollar, so that peg makes sense — everything else where the peg is a bit game-theoretic, where it's "if we have enough yield, enough demand," it's a question of time before it blows up in one way or another.
Warsh Explains Why the Fed Is Removing Forward Guidance
So the Fed is new, fresh. Here's what Warsh said about why they are removing guidance — meaning we will not know anymore how they're thinking, whether they are leaning to cut or leaning to not cut. Listen to this:
"They react to incoming data. I think financial markets work less efficiently when they ask the question: how will the Federal Reserve react to that incoming information? The more that markets are paying attention to what's happening in the real economy, deciding what's good data and what's less good data, the more financial markets can price what they believe is the most likely outcome and what are the tail risks. Financial market prices are probably the most important source of information to guide central bankers. But when all the financial markets are doing is reflecting back what we've said, then we're taking the most important source of information and we're being blind to it. I'd like us to create a system where those blinders come off, where markets are following data that they efficiently think is reliable — they'll be watching data, we'll be watching data, they'll come with better information through market prices to us."
Basically, he's saying they want the market not to be affected by the Fed's guidance. Let's see the effects — will we see less volatility around each and every word that the Fed says? Probably. Because he's not going to speak too much. At the same time, when the decision actually happens, it may be a bit of a surprise that was not priced in. So yeah, all in all, exciting stuff. Welcome, new Fed Chair Warsh. Let's see what's going to happen.
Trump Openly Acknowledges Moving Markets with Iran Peace Signals
And guys, Trump just discovered — or at least he pretends he just discovered — that he can pump and dump the market by doing peace with Iran and then not doing peace with Iran. It's very interesting. Listen to this:
"So the one thing I didn't want to see is I didn't want to see economic catastrophe. If you kept this going, that could have happened. But all I know is every time we talked about the possibility of peace, the stock market shot up like a rocket ship. It never went down. The stock market is more brilliant than anybody there is, including the people on the stage — other than me, of course."
His aide responds: "No, sir."
"Oh, that's a terrible statement. The stock market is quite brilliant. And every time we said something amazing like we're going to settle, it would go up. And every time we said something negative like, 'Guess what? We're not going to be able to settle,' it would go down very big, Peter. Very, very big."
I mean, they're not even hiding it. I love it. They're not even hiding. "We said this and it would go up tremendously. Amazing. And then we said we're not going to do a deal and it went down big. Very, very big. Tells you something." Yeah. What can we do with it? As if it's news to him. This is why they need Hyperliquid, guys. They need Hyperliquid very much. Without Hyperliquid, how are they going to trade all of this?
The "Electrical Cost" Floor Argument Is Unreliable for Trading
I need to tell you about something that is fugazi, because I see it sometimes in my comments. It's a bit of fugazi which you cannot really rely on, and this is the so-called production cost argument. "Bitcoin never dumps below its electrical cost." Number one, this is a bit fugazi from the perspective that the electrical cost adjusts. When you have fewer people mining, the electrical costs go down. But number two, this thing that "Bitcoin never did X, Bitcoin never did Y" — never trust it for trading. Never ever trust it for trading. Please, for your own sake, never trust it for trading.
You know, Bitcoin never went below the previous cycle high — and then it did in the last bear market. It went below $20K, which was the previous cycle high. And then Bitcoin was never above $10K, and then it went to $100K. Bitcoin has not done many different things, and then it did them anyway. So this thing — "Bitcoin has never..." — oh my god, the pleb is wrecked. It's a question of time before you lose your money very, very fast. You only trust the trend. If it's bearish, I don't care about electrical cost. You measure some fugazi thing just to make yourself feel good, to find some extra opium. It's still fugazi. It's still a bear trend, likely going down more.
And also, if you know how Bitcoin works, you know that electrical cost adjusts. If price dumps, it's going to adjust — cost is going to go down because fewer people mine. You have difficulty adjustment. The electrical cost is not constant. It changes all the time. If the prices dump, the difficulty of mining adjusts because fewer people mine and the cost goes down. Super simple. But most people in the space are not engineers like yours truly. They're not developers, computer scientists like yours truly. They're not educated. They don't know how Bitcoin works.
So when you look at the electrical cost, be super careful. It's not tradable. It's not tradable. And also because it changes all the time — you can have an easy decrease in electrical cost if the prices go down. So that's that.
Illinois Passes the Most Punitive Crypto Tax in US History
Next, we have something interesting going on. Governor Pritzker in Illinois has signed a 0.2% tax on crypto transactions into law. Including transfers between personal wallets. What the hell? With the Crypto Council for Innovation calling it the most punitive digital asset tax in history. Holy crap, guys. Illinois. What's happening?
There is effectively no comparable state financial transaction tax on stocks, bonds, or derivatives anywhere in the country. That means crypto is being singled out in violation of several federal principles — it's discrimination. Massive discrimination. Further, the approach makes little sense. You aren't taxed if you exchange a stock, bond, or derivative in paper form, but you are taxed if they happen to be recorded on a blockchain. That's like taxing email. So rather than embracing innovation and the cost efficiencies blockchain can deliver — well, it's very clear. They see the crypto people, they see successful people in crypto, they don't like it. So they just do a tax. Dumb tax. A lot of politics is politics. You know, politics sometimes is politics for politics' sake. "I don't like you. You're freaking rich. You're crypto. I'm not crypto. Tax you." We're ten of us, one of you — we tax you. That's it. Is it smart? I don't care. It's politics.
Now, something else. If you know how Bitcoin works — which most people don't — when you do a Bitcoin payment, let's say you have 10 Bitcoin and you pay a guy 1 Bitcoin, all your 10 Bitcoin will go to a new address. 1 Bitcoin goes to the guy and then 9 Bitcoin returns to a new address that your wallet just created. That's how Bitcoin wallets work. So this guy with his 0.2% tax on crypto transactions including transfers between personal wallets — he needs to clarify what's going to happen with Bitcoin, because this is not visible. Your wallet may not even show you that they actually shifted all your money to a new address under the hood. But if you look on-chain at UTXO inputs and outputs, you have Bitcoin in the transaction and Bitcoin out from the transaction, and all outputs are different from all inputs. Does this guy know how the UTXO model works? Probably not. Otherwise he wouldn't do this rule.
Brian Armstrong is angry. He's saying this Illinois law is remarkably bad. It will end up hurting the state, kill jobs, push innovation out of state. Coinbase has 1.5 million customers — aka voters — in Illinois. Brian should mobilize all the voters to get this guy out. If you think this is bad policy, sign up with Stand with Crypto and let your representative know.
Here is another take from a16z Crypto: "This is one of the most anti-crypto laws in the US. It taxes the exchange, transfer, and storage of digital assets. You buy Bitcoin, you pay tax. You hold your Bitcoin on Coinbase, you pay tax. There is effectively no comparable state financial transaction tax on stocks, bonds, or derivatives anywhere in the country. That means crypto is being singled out in violation of several federal principles. Further, the approach makes little sense. You aren't taxed if you exchange a stock, bond, or derivative in paper form, but you are taxed if they happen to be recorded on a blockchain."
Exactly. That's like taxing email. Move out of Illinois. Big mistake. Big mistake in crypto.
Bipartisan Senate Resolution Opposes SBF Pardon
Sam Bankman-Fried, unfortunately, is not coming out of jail. Why? Because there is a bipartisan — not one partisan, bipartisan — resolution urging Trump to deny Bankman-Fried a pardon. A bipartisan group of senators is seeking to increase pressure on Trump to deny clemency to imprisoned crypto executive SBF, who has spent recent weeks lobbying for a pardon through social media posts and interviews. Republican Senator Cynthia Lummis and Democratic Senator Ruben Gallego are introducing a Senate resolution opposing any pardon for the former FTX chief. He's serving a 25-year sentence after being convicted of fraud tied to FTX.
I think he did too much politics. Bankman-Fried tried to hang out with all politicians, but it actually backfired bigly, because they feel dumb that they supported him and now they are against him so much. It would have been better if he had been a bit more unknown — like Arthur Hayes, who got a pardon a bit under the radar. Even CZ got a pardon a bit under the radar.
In the resolution, the senators reject claims that the prosecution was politically motivated and insist SBF should remain accountable for one of the largest financial fraud cases in recent US history. SBF has repeatedly contended that customers are being repaid through bankruptcy proceedings and sought public support for a pardon.
To be clear, I believe that everyone got their money back in fiat terms. I think I got my money back in fiat terms, but I had ETH. So I may have actually gained a profit by being in FTX, because they recorded the fiat amount which I got back, but ETH has dumped since then. So SBF was more successful than Vitalik at keeping the profit in ETH holders' hands. I need to double-check the numbers, but it's either break-even or even a profit just from the forced selling with FTX. But if everyone got the money back — yes, if you had Bitcoin or something, you're not in a good position. But if you had ETH, maybe it was even better.
It was an interesting process, going through the bankruptcy, filling out some forms, waiting, waiting, waiting, and then finally they paid out. Quite smooth bankruptcy, what can I tell you. In two to three years it got repaid.
Kentucky Sues Kalshi and Polymarket for Unlicensed Sports Gambling
Kentucky has filed lawsuits against prediction market platforms Kalshi and Polymarket, as well as Coinbase and Robinhood. The lawsuits claim the prediction market platforms have been offering unlicensed sports gambling. This regulatory arbitrage is coming to an end, because of course when you can bet on stuff on Polymarket the same way you bet on a traditionally regulated betting platform — you can do the same. I can bet on anything here. It doesn't matter what you call it, because at the end of the day if the substance is the same, it doesn't matter what you call it. If the substance is the same, it is the same.
So you bet — the substance is the same. You call it a prediction market or a betting market, it doesn't matter. It's going to be very interesting to see how they deal with it, but likely they're going to be regulated like traditional betting. Because it's the same. And here is where maybe it wasn't too smart for them to do traditional stuff — they could have just kept to news, because that's kind of new. It's a bit difficult to shove that in the same basket as betting. But in this case, they shoved it right in the same basket. It's the same odds, the same everything.
The "Electrical Cost" Floor — Why It Doesn't Work as a Trading Signal
Now, the "electrical cost" floor argument — I want to be super clear. The signal is the bear trend. Nothing else. No electrical cost, nothing. And also, if you know how Bitcoin works, you know that electrical cost adjusts. If price dumps, it's going to adjust. Cost is going to go down because fewer people mine. You have difficulty adjustment. The electrical cost is not constant. It changes all the time. Super simple.
Q&A: Charts, Coins, and Market Discussion
On trading Bitcoin without a centralized exchange: You should go to near.com. They have made a pool system where you can do trading across different chains — Bitcoin to USDT and so on. It's very, very good. Near is in a bull trend right now. Very nice. Bullish, bullish, bullish. That's exactly how we like Near.
On JTO: Still looking good. Still bullish, even closer to the flip here, but you need to set the stop loss based on ATR. Should Bitcoin take a dive, it's going to be hard for it. But for now, still bull trend, still above the flip. Still looking good.
Near has done something very interesting. It started as some kind of random chain no one cared about last cycle — "What is the use case?" — but now they've done something very interesting. If you go to near.com, you can trade Bitcoin to ETH to Near to stablecoin to even ZCash. You can take your Bitcoin, put it into a shielded ZCash so it's invisible. Privacy by design. Very interesting stuff. Ease to Bitcoin. So basically, test near.com for trading across chains including Bitcoin.
On Aptos: It looks very bad. It went to all-time low and now it's going to go to a new all-time low. It had a bit of sideways action. Yeah, it's going to go to all-time low. The time to buy is going to be at around $1 on the weekly. Technically, I don't know too much about it, but the chart is very bad.
On AI agents and politeness: Don't be rude to your AI agent. Claude or OpenAI — basically what they do is they see that you are swearing, they remove the swear word from the prompt, and they just add to their analytics that you were upset, that you used profanity. So in their analytics they can see all of your profanity, but the AI gets the prompt without it. So it can stay sane and not fight back. That's why it's so patient — it never hears your swearing.
On Axelar: Not really. Price-wise it looks bad. It wants to go to all-time low. It has a bit of support now here. I don't want to sugar-coat it, but it wants to go lower. There is no strength yet, no bull trend. Should it go to bull trend, obviously things will be different. When it comes to tech, they had a lot of integrations in the past — we covered a lot of them. But lately I haven't seen too much. They need to go to bull trend.
On AMPG trade review: Someone has been in AMPG since around $1.97 and now it's at almost $10. It looks very bullish. It's recovering this fall right here. It looks good. Don't over-complicate it. It's higher highs. It's out of this bear thing. It looks very good. Just move your stop loss up all the time. Whether it's going to have a short squeeze — this is the kind of chart you want. You want bull trend. You want it to be strong. Not just a slow bleed, but big fat candles, decisive candles doing new highs. So it's very good. You do have a nice profit, so protect it. For example, you could set a stop loss at $7 just in case, because then it's going to go to bear. Set at $7, let it ride, potentially take a bit of profit, but overall this has more pump. Based on how it looks, I would say it definitely has a bit more pump — maybe even a lot more, because it's not even at all-time high yet. But don't get too greedy. Have a strategy for how to take profit. If it goes to $17, that's not impossible. Bullish, bullish, bullish. Let's see how it goes.
SpaceX Token Price Action
On SpaceX token: The pleb is in. The pleb has FOMO'd in at the top. What we see now is the bear trend on the hourly is now confirmed. We said we needed to wait for a trend. The hourly — we got a trend a few days ago. Yesterday we saw that it's breaking down. Now it's confirmed. It looks bearish. Currently on the hourly it looks bearish. I think we're going to have cheap SpaceX. Let's see how it will unfold. Obviously it's very hard when it just started to trade — anything can happen. But the most attention SpaceX gets is like yesterday. So now it's just going to die down, the attention dies down more and more. It wouldn't surprise me if it goes back to like $20, maybe even lower, because all the plebs are in, the attention is at max. But should it keep pumping, we're going to know that as well. Let's look at the 30-minute — still bullish there. The more candles we have, the clearer the picture is going to be. But now it's bearish on the hourly. Let's see how it goes. Also, a lot of unlocks are going to happen.
ICP and Near: Comparing Use Cases
On ICP vs. Near: Near is a bull trend. ICP — the chart shows a bear trend with a potential breakdown into all-time low. Don't touch ICP currently. Don't touch it. If you already hold it, pray for bull market. I think it could run for all-time highs — maybe. I don't know. Could it? Could. But which all-time high? You mean this crazy listing all-time high? That one's going to be tough. Maybe the 2021 high. But it's crazy how this thing has basically destroyed the project more or less — everyone sees on all the aggregator platforms that it's down like 99% or something.
With Near, the use case is clear — you can actually do swaps cross-chain, so it's a clear use case. I wouldn't put ICP in the same bucket because no one is actually using it directly. Maybe someone will use it in the future, maybe some AI will use it — we've heard that story before. I'll believe it when I see it, because currently I don't see it. You can say anything: "AI is going to use ICP." Okay. Who's going to actually use it instead of going to Elon and getting a data center? I don't know. Let's see.
The thing is, these pumps don't happen automatically. You need the market maker. You need the Arthur Hayes types. All kinds of stuff needs to be put into place. It's all about the team — how connected are they, do people like them, will they want to work together to do some kind of push? We are in an industry like that, guys. Don't be in la-la land that out of nowhere an asset just starts going up. Nothing here has actual demand. Bitcoin has actual demand, and maybe a few others. Everything else — nothing here has actual demand in the sense that you build something and you actually need the coin and you need a lot of it so it goes up 10x or 100x. I mean, imagine the builders — the programmers — saying, "Oh man, now I built something on ICP, let me buy ICP coins so my app works." Or users saying, "Oh, I'm using so much on ICP, let me buy ICP coins so I can use the app." No. No one does it. It pumps because the market maker pushes it up, the chart looks good, traders pile in, bull market, parabola. That's how it works. For that, you need a bit of a story. "Internet computer, AI memory on chain." You need a bit of that. But sometimes with memes, they say we don't need any of that. We just pump. No story.
On Diminishing Returns and Bitcoin's Price Ceiling
On diminishing returns and whether Bitcoin tops out below $200K: It could be like that. Diminishing return is one thing. But another thing is just that numbers are getting bigger. We have a guy who is worth a trillion now. So yes, diminishing returns — but I think the world's brain is also now counting in bigger numbers. I remember the first time a company went to a trillion — I think it was Apple — it was monumental. The first ever company. And then boop boop boop, all of them are now a trillion. Amazon, all of them very quickly now a trillion. Now we have one guy being a trillionaire. You're going to see soon like 10 more. Why? Because now everyone is going to value companies way higher. SpaceX is here and I have some kind of company and I now anchor myself to their valuation, so it goes up.
The same with Bitcoin. How do you value it? Maybe you compare to the stock market, maybe you compare to something else. When you now have SpaceX, Anthropic, OpenAI worth so much, now Bitcoin is compared to that and it's way easier to value it way higher. How the hell is Bitcoin worth less than Elon Musk? So yeah, diminishing return is one argument — it's fair, with diminishing returns we're going to go lower than $200K maybe. But the other argument is that the world is bigger. We have more money, more numbers, big number, very big number nowadays. Everywhere big number, big print, big inflation. So it's impossible to say. I don't know if it's going to be diminishing return or not. We just look at the trend. It's one of these things which is just fun to speculate about. There are both sides — it may be diminishing, but maybe also just numbers are bigger now. We have many companies now at a trillion and Bitcoin maybe needs to go to $10 trillion. Gold went up a lot, so maybe gold doesn't have diminishing return either. You understand.
On the 200-week moving average as a buying signal: Anything that you are bullish on long-term — you want to accumulate long-term — the 200-week exponential moving average is the long-term fair price, average price, and it's good. You know that even if it goes down a bit further, the price is good. For example, this buy zone is created based on the 200-week moving average. We know that the price is good, but it's going to even go down a bit further, as we explained in the beginning of the show. So should the S&P go to the 200-week moving average, it's smart to buy even if it's a bear trend — you can start DCA-ing. The same thing with NASDAQ. The same thing with gold. Should gold go to the 200-week moving average, fantastic. Anything you are bullish on long-term, the 200-week moving average is the long-term fair price.
On everyone expecting $50K as the bottom: Yeah. Or we get $40K again. These things — it's not useful. Everyone expecting it is like everyone expecting us to top out in October, so we're not going to top out in October. We topped out anyway. Everyone expecting us to pump after the halving, so we're not going to pump. We'll pump anyway after. Everyone expecting the bottom to be in Q4 2022, so we're not going to pump in 2022. We'll pump anyway. But one thing — everyone was expecting us to not go below the previous high. We had the high of the 2017 cycle and everyone said, "Oh no, we're not going to go below it." And we did go below it. So again, it's just a signal that things that never happened before — they happen. They can happen. So maybe everyone expects $50K and we go to $30K. I mean, it can also be like that.
Because we are bullish BTC and we're accumulating in the buy zone, we're fine with that also. That would be fantastic. Imagine buying Bitcoin at $30K. If it goes to $30K, maybe Solana goes to $30 and Bitcoin goes — holy crap, guys. If Bitcoin goes to $30K — I don't know what I will do. I will do crazy stuff. But even here this is okay. Let's see.
Zcash: Broke down a bit, like a fake bounce, and the target here — invalidation at $93, then we're bullish. At $93 we're bullish. ZCash made a comeback like that. I mean, for ICP it's going to be like ZCash — maybe. Listen, it's all about what they do. It's not really about the coin or fundamentals. It's about the team. Will market makers pump it? Because these things don't happen automatically.