Many recent Bitcoin sellers are likely expecting a downturn and may be turning to social media to sway sentiment in that direction, according to an analyst.

Santiment said Bitcoin’s retail-whale divide is a flashing warning sign, while other analysts anticipate new highs on a macro rebound.

DefiLlama has launched LlamaAI, a natural language analytics tool that turns user prompts into onchain insights using its full dataset.

The post DefiLlama launches LlamaAI to bring natural language analysis to onchain data appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Coinbase roadmap includes Aster, highlighting increased institutional interest in the decentralized perpetuals trading platform.

The post Coinbase adds Aster to listing roadmap appeared first on Crypto Briefing.

Bitcoin is struggling to hold the $100K level, with bulls unable to reclaim momentum as fear and uncertainty dominate the market. The price continues to trade near critical support, and despite strong on-chain fundamentals, sentiment remains fragile. According to top analyst Darkfost, the market is undergoing a profound transformation — one that’s making many traditional on-chain indicators less reliable.

“With time, we can clearly see that the structure and dynamics of the market are evolving,” he notes. While retail behavior and exchange flows once defined market cycles, the growing influence of institutions, ETFs, and long-term investors has changed the rhythm of Bitcoin’s price action.

Still, some metrics remain vital, and one of the most insightful, according to Darkfost, is Coin Days Destroyed (CDD) — a measure of long-term holder activity. “It’s one of the indicators I follow the most because long-term holders are still driving this market,” he says.

Currently, between 75% and 80% of all Bitcoin supply is held by long-term holders, signaling that the majority of investors remain strong-handed despite volatility. This consolidation among patient holders may ultimately set the stage for the next major trend once short-term fear fades.

Long-Term Holders Drive Market Dynamics Through Rising CDD

According to Darkfost, the Coin Days Destroyed (CDD) metric remains one of the most valuable tools for understanding Bitcoin’s market structure. It provides a clear visualization of long-term holder (LTH) activity and the potential selling pressure they exert. Essentially, CDD measures how long coins have been held before being moved — and when older coins start circulating again, it’s often a sign that distribution is underway.

Currently, the 30-day moving average of CDD is steadily rising, having doubled since early summer. Interestingly, this metric declined before Bitcoin’s last all-time high, helping fuel that rally, but it has continued to climb since — reflecting growing LTH activity.

On an annual scale, CDD levels have already surpassed the 2021 cycle and are approaching those from 2017, marking one of the most active long-term holder phases in Bitcoin’s history.

This trend signals a massive transfer of supply between market participants. Despite this, Bitcoin remains above $100,000, showing that today’s market is more liquid, resilient, and institutionally driven than in previous cycles. LTHs now have the ability to distribute significant volumes without crashing prices, demonstrating how far Bitcoin’s maturity and market depth have evolved over time.

Bitcoin Battles to Hold $100K Support

Bitcoin is currently trading near $100,767, struggling to maintain stability after a volatile week marked by aggressive selling pressure. The daily chart reveals that BTC has once again tested the $100K psychological support, a key level that bulls must defend to prevent further downside momentum.

From a technical perspective, Bitcoin remains below its 50-day (blue) and 100-day (green) moving averages, signaling that short- and mid-term momentum continues to favor the bears. The 200-day moving average (red) — now positioned slightly above $106K — is acting as dynamic resistance, reinforcing the broader correction phase that began in late October.

If Bitcoin manages to close above $103K–$104K, it could signal a short-term recovery toward $108K–$110K. Conversely, a decisive break below $100K could trigger a sharper correction toward $95K, potentially testing the market’s resilience as sentiment continues to waver between fear and cautious optimism.

Featured image from ChatGPT, chart from TradingView.com

Bitcoin (BTC) continues to consolidate around the $100,000–$102,000 zone as global markets remain cautious following the hawkish comments from the U.S. Federal Reserve.

Related Reading: Is A Ripple IPO Coming? Garlinghouse Shares New Insights

Despite short-term weakness, analysts remain divided, with institutional forecasts ranging from $120,000 to $170,000 for 2025.

Macro Pressure Keeps Bitcoin in Tight Range

Currently, Bitcoin is trading around $100,900, down 2.01% in the last 24 hours, extending its 8.2% weekly decline.

The broader crypto market capitalization slipped to $3.37 trillion as Ethereum fell below $3,400 and altcoins posted mixed results. Analysts attribute the muted action to tight liquidity and risk-off sentiment, with BTC trapped between key support at $100,500 and resistance at $102,500.

According to CoinSwitch Markets Desk, maintaining levels above $100,500 keeps sentiment “constructive,” but a breakout above $102,500 is needed to target $104,000–$105,000.

Whale activity, however, suggests accumulation. Wallets holding 1,000–10,000 BTC added nearly 30,000 BTC last week, signaling growing confidence among large holders.

Diverging Institutional Bitcoin Forecasts Add to Uncertainty

Institutional analysts remain split on Bitcoin’s next move. JPMorgan values BTC at $170,000, comparing its risk-adjusted volatility to gold, while Bitwise CIO Matt Hougan and MicroStrategy’s Michael Saylor forecast a $150,000 year-end target driven by ETF inflows and institutional rotation.

In contrast, Galaxy Digital cut its 2025 forecast to $120,000 after whales sold 400,000 BTC in October, warning that Bitcoin’s “maturity era” may lead to slower but steadier growth.

Meanwhile, Cathie Wood of ARK Invest has trimmed her 2030 price target from $1.5 million to $1.2 million, citing stablecoin adoption in emerging markets like Venezuela and Argentina, where citizens are increasingly using USDT to hedge against inflation.

Market Sentiment and Corporate Impact

Market sentiment remains fragile, with RSI readings below 40 suggesting an oversold phase. Veteran analyst Tom Lee believes current macro challenges could “turn into opportunities,” predicting a turnaround once U.S. inflation eases.

Adding to the mix, Block Inc., led by Jack Dorsey, reported $1.97 billion in Bitcoin-related revenue for Q3 2025, nearly one-third of its total earnings, despite a broader earnings miss that sent shares down over 10%.

Related Reading: Will Michael Saylor’s $64 Billion Bitcoin Stack Get Liquidated At $74,000? Here’s The Truth

For now, Bitcoin’s resilience above $100,000 offers cautious optimism. A decisive close above $105,000 could confirm a trend reversal; however, until then, BTC’s consolidation reflects a market at the crossroads of macroeconomic headwinds and institutional conviction.

Cover image from ChatGPT, BTCUSD chart from Tradingview

The Artificial Superintelligence Alliance, once hailed as crypto’s flagship AI collaboration, is now unraveling under the weight of internal conflict and competing interests.

Formed to unify Fetch.ai, SingularityNET, and Ocean Protocol into a shared ecosystem, the alliance promised to accelerate decentralized AI development through token and governance alignment.

But what began as a vision of synergy has devolved into public disputes over control, transparency, and token management.

Those tensions have now spilled into the courtroom, with Fetch leading a class action that could test not only the alliance’s future but also the very notion of DAO autonomy.

Why is Fetch taking legal action against Ocean Protocol?

Fetch and three token holders have filed a class action in the Southern District of New York alleging Ocean Protocol and its founders misled the community about the autonomy of OceanDAO.

The complaint, “Fetch Compute, Inc., et al. v. Bruce Pon, et al., case no. 1:25-cv-9210,” was filed Nov. 4, 2025, and names Ocean Protocol Foundation Ltd., Ocean Expeditions Ltd., OceanDAO, and Ocean co-founders Bruce Pon, Trent McConaghy, and Christina Pon as defendants.

Plaintiffs claim that Ocean misrepresented that hundreds of millions of OCEAN “community” tokens would be reserved for DAO rewards, but instead converted and sold those tokens after joining the Artificial Superintelligence Alliance, thereby depressing the value of FET and undermining the DAO’s stated governance model.

According to the complaint, the alleged scheme centered on the status of approximately 700 million OCEAN community tokens.

Plaintiffs claim that those tokens were initially pledged for autonomous, rules-based distribution to contributors via smart contracts as Ocean transitioned to a DAO model, but were subsequently reclassified in practice and removed from community control.

The filing argues that Ocean transferred the OceanDAO assets to a Cayman Islands entity, Ocean Expeditions, in late June, converted OCEAN to FET beginning in early July, liquidated a large portion of the resulting FET on centralized venues, and withdrew from the ASI Alliance in October.

K&L Gates partner Ed Dartley, counsel to Fetch.ai and the plaintiff class, said in a statement shared with CryptoSlate that

“Ocean misled the token community and its merger partners… to believe that 600 million Ocean tokens were reserved for community rewards.”

He added that the defendants “reaped millions of dollars that should have gone to the community.”

Ocean Protocol Foundation is contesting the claims. In a statement to CryptoSlate, Preston Byrne, Managing Partner of Byrne & Storm, who represents Ocean Protocol Foundation, said:

“This is a very strange lawsuit that seems designed for consumption on social media rather than destined for success in a courtroom. OPF will be responding to this lawsuit vigorously in due course.”

In a statement shared with CryptoSlate, Dr. Ben Goertzel, CEO of SingularityNET and co-founder of the ASI Alliance, said:

“While I have been very unpleasantly surprised by some of the recent actions of Ocean Protocol in the context of their departure from the ASI Alliance, I would rather leave the legal side in the hands of the lawyers.

I would just like to reiterate that while Ocean has chosen to go their own way, the Alliance continues to move forward powerfully toward decentralized AGI and superintelligence, with new advances every day.”

Plaintiffs detail a timeline that tracks the ASI token merger and Ocean’s eventual departure.

According to the filing, plaintiffs assert claims of fraud, civil conspiracy, violations of New York General Business Law, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant, and promissory estoppel, and they seek class certification, damages, and equitable relief, including rescission and disgorgement.

The complaint frames the case around whether a purportedly decentralized DAO was, in fact, controlled by a small group that could move community assets without the approval of token holders, and whether Ocean’s public materials, blog posts, and “vision” documents created a binding covenant regarding how community tokens would be used.

They allege that Ocean joined the alliance on the basis that community tokens would remain restricted for rewards, whereas the FET and AGIX communities voted to proceed.

Afterward, the complaint states that Ocean created Ocean Expeditions on June 27, 2025, transferred OceanDAO assets to that entity, began converting OCEAN to FET around July 1, 2025, and later exited the ASI Alliance on October 8–9, 2025.

The filing quantifies the flows as more than 661 million OCEAN converted into approximately 286.46 million FET, followed by sales of roughly 263 million FET into the market, equivalent to more than 10 percent of the circulating supply at the time, resulting in price pressure on FET during and after Ocean’s withdrawal.

For readers tracking the on-chain and structural mechanics, the complaint claims Ocean had previously revoked contract control and described OceanDAO as “fully decentralized and autonomous,” with community tokens to be disbursed by smart contract to participants in data farming and other incentive programs.

Plaintiffs argue that these commitments were central to merger-vote approvals and to token holders’ decisions to hold, convert, or acquire tokens during the ASI transition, and that any undisclosed change in control of the community token wallets would be material to market behavior and governance expectations.

The filing also asserts market structure impacts. Plaintiffs allege that converting and then selling community tokens created a persistent overhang, weakening confidence in DAO governance and impairing the alliance’s ability to attract contributors and sustain incentives.

The complaint cites price levels around the exit window and ties the drawdown to Ocean’s actions and announcements, while noting the scale of the tokens at issue in relation to the float.

The theory of harm combines direct token price effects with a loss of the incentive pool that the community expected to fund data and model contributions over time.

For an at-a-glance view of the dispute as pleaded:

The case lands in a period of mounting regulatory and civil scrutiny for token projects that describe themselves as decentralized while maintaining foundation-controlled multisig structures. U.S. agencies and courts have treated DAOs as unincorporated associations when human controllers are identifiable.

Recent matters have focused on who can authorize treasury moves, how proposals are approved, and whether token holder votes are binding in practice. The SDNY forum adds discovery and motion practice that can probe the gap between technical decentralization claims and operational control, especially where a large “community” allocation is alleged to have been spent, converted, or redirected.

Key next steps to watch are an appearance by defense counsel, any motion to dismiss challenging the contract and consumer protection claims, and requests for preliminary relief tied to control of token holdings referenced in the filing.

Plaintiffs also plead for equitable remedies that could affect custodied balances or on-chain addresses if granted. Any parallel governance changes, signer disclosures, escrow arrangements, or return mechanisms announced by the parties would reshape the live controversy even as the litigation proceeds.

Ocean’s response will determine whether this dispute proceeds directly to motions practice or toward a negotiated framework for handling the tokens at issue.

Plaintiffs have framed the case around DAO accountability and the reliance of token holders on the DAO. The defense has framed it as a social media narrative.

The complaint now presents that conflict before a federal judge in New York.

The post Crypto’s flagship AI project fractures: Fetch sues Ocean over 263M FET ‘community’ sales appeared first on CryptoSlate.

US-traded spot Bitcoin (BTC) exchange-traded funds’ (ETFs) flows turned net positive after nearly a week of redemptions.

According to Farside Investors’ data, US spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded $240 million in net inflows on Nov. 6, following six consecutive sessions that drained more than $660 million from the products.

BlackRock’s IBIT led with $112.4 million, followed by Fidelity’s FBTC at $61.6 million and Ark 21Shares’ ARKB at $60.4 million.

The movement means that the largest marginal buyers in the Bitcoin market just stopped selling and started buying again.

Although one green day doesn’t erase a week of red, in a market where liquidity determines price action more than sentiment, the reversal matters because ETF flows are no longer just demand signals. The funds have become a liquidity infrastructure.

Since launch, US spot ETFs have accumulated over $60.5 billion in net inflows and control roughly $135 billion in assets under management. That represents approximately 6.7% of all Bitcoin in existence, held in products that cater to regulated-access demand.

When those products flip from net redemptions to net creations, they don’t just change the headline, but rather the mechanical pressure on order books.

The arithmetic of absorption

Following the halving, miners issue approximately 450 BTC daily. At current prices of nearly $102,555.06, that translates to over $46 million in new supply entering the market every day.

A single $240 million inflow day absorbs more than five days of global issuance through US ETFs alone. This isn’t metaphorical buying pressure, but a programmatic demand executing through authorized participants who must purchase BTC to create new shares.

When ETF flows turn negative, the process reverses. Authorized participants redeem shares and sell Bitcoin back into the market or into their internal inventories, creating constant and predictable sell pressure at the margin.

When flows flip positive, those same participants buy in size to meet demand for creation.

Because ETFs now control a mid-single-digit percentage of total supply and serve as the primary vehicle for institutional allocation, their net flow has become the cleanest measure of large, trackable marginal liquidity in Bitcoin.

The market structure has changed. Liquidity for BTC no longer primarily resides on Binance’s spot and perpetual futures markets, but also lives in what IBIT, FBTC, and their peers are doing with daily creations and redemptions.

Two conditions, one met

Recent analysis from Glassnode identified two requirements for Bitcoin bulls to regain structural control: consistent positive ETF flows and a reclaim of roughly $112,500, the short-term holder cost basis, as support.

The Nov. 6 inflow satisfies the first condition in miniature. It demonstrates that real TradFi demand still exists at current prices, willing to buy the dip via ETFs rather than abandon the product after a $1.9 billion outflow stretch.

One print doesn’t rewrite the structure. Over the past week, ETFs have remained net negative.

However, the moment those daily bars flip from red to green and stay there, the market turns off a major systematic seller and turns back on a buyer capable of outbidding both new issuance and a portion of long-term holder distribution.

That’s when the “ETF flows plus $112,500 reclaim” combination becomes a credible setup rather than wishful thinking.

Four channels to tighter markets

The liquidity impact operates through multiple channels simultaneously.

First, positive ETF flows pull coins from liquid spot venues into ETF custody, where they remain relatively stable, thereby immediately reducing the tradable float. A thinner spot float combined with steady or rising demand creates more sensitive order books.

Once buyers lean in, transactions occur more quickly and with less volume.

Second, when US ETFs enter net-buy mode, authorized participants sweep liquidity across major exchanges to fulfill creation orders. That tightens spreads at the top of the book, but drains resting asks.

In a market already dealing with lower post-halving issuance and heavy HODL concentrations, ETF bid returns are the kind of structural flow that can fuel an upside break, rather than every rally being absorbed by sellers.

Third, the $135 billion ETF complex adds “paper” liquidity in the form of deep, regulated trading in ETF shares themselves. This makes it easier for pension funds, registered investment advisor platforms, and corporations to allocate or rebalance without affecting spot markets.

When those players turn net buyers, Bitcoin’s effective demand base broadens, and volatility from purely crypto-native leverage gets better absorbed by diversified flow.

Fourth, there’s signal value. After a week where outflows tracked broader risk-off positioning and long-term holders quietly distributed into weakness, a decisive inflow day from the most significant brand-name funds represents an important shift in sentiment.

The inflows indicate that large allocators remain comfortable adding Bitcoin exposure via ETFs at near six-figure prices, which supports the thesis that sub-$100,000 wicks are being treated as opportunities rather than regime breaks.

Snapping a six-day, $660 million outflow streak with $240 million of fresh creations doesn’t end Bitcoin’s correction or guarantee the next leg up. But it does something more important for market structure: it removes mechanical sell pressure from the single largest category of marginal buyers.

For now, the pressure flipped. Whether it stays flipped determines whether Bitcoin’s liquidity environment supports consolidation or another test of support.

The post Bitcoin ETFs break 6-day outflow streak with $240M buy: What it means for liquidity appeared first on CryptoSlate.

After 18 tense days in a Manhattan federal courtroom, the high-profile U.S. v. Peraire-Bueno trial has ended in a mistrial.

Judge Jessica G.L. Clarke declared the outcome late Friday, citing a deadlocked jury unable to reach a unanimous verdict on charges of wire fraud and money laundering. Challenges seen in the case are to some extent similar to what happened between the Department of Justice and Tornado Cash.

$25 Million Trial Tests Whether Code Can Be a Crime

The case centered on two MIT-educated brothers, Benjamin and Noah Peraire-Bueno, accused of orchestrating an exploit on Ethereum’s Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) system.

Ethereum MEV is a core mechanism that determines how transactions are ordered in blocks. Prosecutors alleged the pair executed so-called “sandwich attacks”, manipulating transaction sequencing to siphon roughly $25 million from other traders.

Matthew Russell Lee of the Inner-City Press described the case as one of the most technically complex crypto cases to date, testing the boundaries between algorithmic opportunism and criminal intent.

Reportedly, defense attorneys argued that the brothers leveraged public blockchain code, conduct they claimed was “within the rules of the system.” Prosecutors, however, painted the scheme as a calculated digital heist disguised as clever coding. The mistrial was declared after three days of jury deliberations.

Throughout the trial, jurors struggled to understand how to interpret mens rea, or criminal intent, in the context of decentralized finance (DeFi).

Code vs. Intent — The Legal Grey Area Exposed by the Mistrial

According to courtroom transcripts shared by Lee, defense lawyer Looby argued that “the government didn’t want this description of intent in there,” emphasizing that the accused believed they were acting within the technical framework of Ethereum rather than committing a traditional fraud.

The prosecution countered that the defendants acted with “wrongful purpose,” exploiting a system designed for transparency to deceive and enrich themselves.

Judge Clarke noted that under existing statutes, “there is no requirement that the defendants knew their actions were illegal.”

The mistrial now leaves both regulators and developers with a difficult precedent, or lack thereof. The Peraire-Bueno case could have set a landmark judgment on whether code-based exploits in decentralized networks can be prosecuted under conventional fraud laws.

Instead, it ends with ambiguity. The Department of Justice has not yet announced whether it will seek a retrial. DeFi advocates could call the outcome a victory for open systems and innovation.

To some extent, this case mirrors the challenges seen with the Tornado Cash case. As the case centered on decentralization, it sparked debate on regulating blockchain tied to criminal misuse.

As it initially happened, a US federal appeals court struck down sanctions imposed by the Treasury Department on Tornado Cash. 

The post Mistrial in $25 Million Ethereum ‘Sandwich Bot’ Case Puts Code and Value on Trial appeared first on BeInCrypto.

The Ripple price surged 5% in the past hour to $2.32 after 21Shares filed a key amendment for its proposed spot XRP ETF (exchange-traded fund).

The move triggers a 20-day SEC review period that could automatically clear the fund for trading by late November.

XRP Jumps 5% as SEC Clock Starts on 21Shares ETF

The XRP community clearly received the news with euphoria, seen with a surge in buying activity, which catapulted the Ripple price nearly 5% within the hour.

The filing, officially known as an Amendment No. 3 to Form S-1, was submitted under Section 8(a) of the Securities Act of 1933.

It sets the clock for a potential automatic approval if the US SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) does not intervene within the window. ETF analyst Eric Balchunas confirmed the move on X (Twitter).  

If the SEC remains silent, the ETF could go live around November 27, as highlighted by market expert, Scott Melker.

“It could automatically go live around November 27 if the SEC does not act!” Melker noted.

Likewise, pro-XRP community member Diana described the update as “a countdown to SEC review,” predicting a big “god candle” within a month.

In technical analysis, a god candle refers to a massive, sudden green candlestick on a price chart that represents an explosive upward move in a very short period.

One such instance where the XRP price recorded a good candle was in July 2023, when Judge Analisa Torres delivered a partial ruling in favor of the Ripple community.

Then, naysayers missed out on gains of up to 70% as the XRP price skyrocketed. Therefore, Diana’s god candle prediction reflects the prospective euphoria.

Institutional Filings Align Around November

The 21Shares development comes just days after Franklin Templeton and Grayscale Investments made parallel adjustments to their own XRP ETF filings. As BeInCrypto reported, the moves signaled growing institutional coordination ahead of what could be a historic month for the approval of the Ripple-affiliated token.

In particular, Franklin Templeton removed regulatory language that could delay approval from its S-1 registration statement, eliminating the same 8(a) clause that once required explicit SEC clearance before launch.

This change, often used to fast-track ETF effectiveness, has been interpreted by analysts as a sign of readiness for a November rollout.

Meanwhile, Grayscale filed its second amendment for its proposed XRP Trust conversion, designating key executives and legal counsel. This is another preparatory step typically seen ahead of launch timelines.

Adding to the momentum, Canary Capital is now targeting a November 13 debut for its own XRP ETF, pending final approval from Nasdaq.

If one or more XRP ETFs go live this month, it would mark the first time the token joins Bitcoin and Ethereum in the spot ETF market. The event could reshape institutional exposure and liquidity flows for XRP.

The post 21Shares XRP ETF Filing Sparks Frenzy — Is a ‘God Candle’ Coming Next? appeared first on BeInCrypto.

Bitcoin’s latest market pullback has pushed its MVRV ratio back into a critical zone that has historically been associated with macro correction lows and early-stage recovery setups. The MVRV metric now reflects a valuation reset similar to the conditions that preceded major rebound phases in prior cycles.

Why The Reset Reinforces Bitcoin Value Proposition

The crypto bearish performance echoes through the Bitcoin community as the Market Value to Realized Value (MVRV) ratio dips into the critical 1.8 to 2.0 range, a zone significant for past cycle corrections where BTC found its footing before initiating a recovery. An ambassador and market expert, BitBull, has revealed on X that for those unfamiliar with its significance, the MVRV ratio compares BTC’s current market value to its realized value, which is what investors actually paid for their coins.

However, when this ratio dips near 2, it signals that a majority of holders are hovering around their cost basis. At this point, there’s no greed left in the system, just conviction. Historically, this 1.8 to 2.0 MVRV range has coincided with major market bottoms in June 2021, November 2022, and April 2025, when the market felt broken, but BTC was quietly resetting.

With the MVRV ratio currently re-entering this same critical zone, combined with the massive liquidations observed recently and a palpable sense of panic across the market, the pattern feels eerily familiar. Every time sentiment turns into hopelessness, on-chain data would show a different story of exhaustion, not collapse.

BitBull personally views this phase as one of compression, not capitulation, indicating short-term pain but a long-term opportunity. The same market dynamics cycle that previously punished excessive leverage is now washing out the remaining weak hands. BitBull concluded that if history rhymes, this will be the part of the story where the bottom gets written, not the top.

Why Liquidity Matters More Than Interest Rates

Liquidity has been a crucial component of the Bitcoin market. A full-time crypto trader and investor, Daan Crypto Trades, has pointed out that if there is one macro factor that drives BTC and the broader crypto market, it’s the amount of global liquidity within the financial system, not interest rates.

This correlation is clear from comparing the global liquidity index with BTC’s price movements over the years. Daan has recently observed a shift where global liquidity has stopped expanding and begun to trend downwards again. 

However, this change has put a halt to BTS’s upward momentum, combined with the anticipated profit-taking behavior observed during the 4-year market cycle. “Once global liquidity starts expanding at a rapid pace, the market environment for crypto will become significantly more supportive than it is currently,” the expert noted.

Ray Dalio has fired a shot across the macro bow, arguing that the Federal Reserve’s latest balance-sheet guidance risks “stimulating into a bubble” rather than stabilizing a weakening economy—an inversion of the classic post-crisis QE playbook with potentially seismic implications for hard assets, including Bitcoin.

In a post titled “Stimulating Into a Bubble,” Dalio frames the Fed’s pivot—ending quantitative tightening and signaling that reserves will need to start growing again—as the next milestone in the late stage of the Big Debt Cycle. “Did you see that the Fed’s announcement that it will stop QT and begin QE?” he wrote, cautioning that, even if described as a technical maneuver, it is “an easing move… to track the progression of the Big Debt Cycle.”

If balance-sheet expansion coincides with rate cuts and persistent fiscal deficits, Dalio warns, markets will be staring at a “classic monetary and fiscal interaction of the Fed and the Treasury to monetize government debt.” He adds that, in such a setup—high equity prices, tight credit spreads, low unemployment, above-target inflation, and an AI-led mania—“it will look to me like the Fed is stimulating into a bubble.”

The policy context for Dalio’s warning is not imaginary. After months of tightening liquidity and ebbing bank reserves, the Fed has announced it will end balance-sheet runoff (QT). Chair Jerome Powell underscored that, within the ample-reserves framework, the central bank will at some point have to add reserves again: “At a certain point, you’ll want reserves to start gradually growing to keep up with the size of the banking system and the size of the economy. So we’ll be adding reserves at a certain point,” he said at his October 29 press conference.

Officials and many sell-side desks have emphasized that reserve management need not equal a return to crisis-era QE. The practical similarity: if the Fed is again a steady net buyer of Treasuries to maintain “ample” reserves as deficits persist, the market experience can rhyme with QE even without the label.

While Dalio spars Bitcoin from his post, the mechanics are familiar to Bitcoin investors. He argues that when central banks buy bonds and push real yields down, “what happens next depends on where the liquidity goes.” If it remains in financial assets, “multiples expand, risk spreads compress, and gold rises,” producing “financial asset inflation.”

If it seeps into goods and services, inflation rises and real returns can erode. Crucially for cross-asset allocation, Dalio frames relative returns explicitly: with gold yielding 0% and, say, a 10-year Treasury yielding ~4%, gold outperforms if its price appreciation is expected to exceed that rate, especially as inflation expectations rise and the currency’s purchasing power falls. In that environment, “the more money and credit central banks are making, the higher I expect the inflation rate to be, and the less I like bonds relative to gold.”

What This Means For Bitcoin

Commentators immediately translated those mechanics for Bitcoin. “Fed resumes QE → more liquidity → real interest rates fall,” wrote Coin Bureau CEO Nick Puckrin. “Falling real rates → bonds & cash become unattractive → money chases risk and hard assets… Inflation risk rises → investors hedge with gold, commodities, and digital stores of value.” He highlighted Dalio’s own language—“gold rises so there is financial asset inflation,” and QE “pushes real yields down and pushes P/E multiples up”—before concluding: “Bitcoin thrives in precisely that environment… it’s digital gold on steroids.”

Millionaire investor Thomas Kralow sharpened the timing risk embedded in Dalio’s framework: this would not be “stimulus into a depression” but “stimulus into a mania.” In his words, liquidity would “flood already overheated markets… stocks melt up, gold rips, and crypto… goes vertical,” with the usual risk-on sequence across the crypto complex. His caveat mirrors Dalio’s late-cycle caution: a liquidity melt-up now, then—on a longer horizon—re-acceleration in inflation, a forced policy reversal, and a violent bubble pop.

For Bitcoin, the near-term transmission is straightforward. Lower real yields and expanding liquidity historically coincide with stronger performance of long-duration, high-beta, and scarcity narratives; similar to 1999-style melt-ups and late-cycle surges in hard assets, including gold—and, by extension, BTC as a “digital gold” proxy.

But the medium-to-long-term tension is unresolved: if the same easing stokes renewed inflation pressure, the exit—the point at which policy must tighten into the bubble—becomes the regime break Dalio is flagging. Dalio’s bottom line is not a trading signal but a regime warning. “Whether this becomes a full and classic stimulative QE (with big net purchases) remains to be seen,” he writes. If the Fed is indeed easing into a bubble, Bitcoin may benefit on the way up—but that path, by Dalio’s own schema, ends with impact.

At press time, Bitcoin traded at $99,717.