In the past 24 hours, the most noticeable change in the market is not the implementation of a favorable cryptocurrency policy, but rather a temporary easing of geopolitical risks. The United States and Iran have reached a two-week ceasefire arrangement conditioned on the restoration of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz; subsequently, global markets quickly entered a 'risk appetite recovery' mode: oil prices plummeted, stock markets surged, bonds strengthened, the dollar retreated, and BTC also rose accordingly. Reuters directly referred to this round as a relief rally, which is a 'rebound driven by emotional relief.' This statement is crucial because it highlights the core of this rise: first, the decline in macro risk premiums, followed by the increase in coin prices.

From the market performance, this looks more like a cross-asset consistency risk-on, rather than BTC independently bulling. On April 8, BTC rose to about $71,884, with an intraday high of $72,716; at the same time, oil prices significantly retreated due to ceasefire news, with Reuters reporting that Brent crude briefly fell to around $91 per barrel, and AP also noted that the three major U.S. stock indices surged while crude oil plummeted. In other words, the market did not suddenly reprice Bitcoin's long-term fundamentals, but rather the entire market was making a unified repricing in response to the "decreased risk of war escalation." The essence of this rise is often the "initial repair of panic discounts," rather than "confirming a new trend."

More importantly, the ceasefire itself is far from stable enough to support a trend reversal. AP's on-the-ground updates stated very plainly: hours after the ceasefire was announced, attacks were still reported; Israel also clearly stated that the related arrangements did not extend to the Lebanese front. Reuters had previously described this plan cautiously: it is essentially a **"first a temporary ceasefire, then discuss the final agreement"** two-stage framework, rather than a completed permanent peace agreement. In other words, the market is currently trading on the premise that "the worst-case scenario has not continued to deteriorate," rather than "all uncertainties have disappeared." Once the fragility of the ceasefire is exposed, a rebound like BTC's, which initially relied on sentiment, usually retracts quickly.

If we raise our perspective a bit, there is also a second layer of support: the macro environment has not truly turned bullish because of this rebound. The latest survey from the New York Fed shows that the one-year inflation expectation in the U.S. rose to 3.4% in March, with gasoline price expectations rising to a four-year high; New York Fed President Williams expects this year's headline inflation to be around 2.75%. At the same time, Fed Vice Chair Jefferson clearly stated that the current environment faces both downward risks in employment and upward risks in inflation; Chicago Fed President Goolsbee even directly referred to the impacts brought by the Middle Eastern war as potentially leading to a stagflation-type dilemma. In this context, the market is hesitant to aggressively bet on interest rate cuts, and Reuters also mentioned that financial markets are even betting on the Fed remaining inactive for the entire year. For risk assets, this is clearly not the kind of macro soil that can smoothly ignite a new round of trend bull market.

Looking at the internal structure of cryptocurrency, the necessary "underlying capital repair" for trend reversal is not yet solid. A report from Reuters in February cited Deutsche Bank's view that the previous significant drop in BTC was mainly dragged down by continuous withdrawals from spot ETFs: over $3 billion flowed out in January, with approximately $2 billion and $7 billion flowing out in December and November, respectively. More recent data also shows that funds are unstable: Farside's statistics indicate that on April 6, the U.S. spot BTC ETF had a net inflow of $471.4 million, but on April 7, it turned into a net outflow of $159.1 million. What does this indicate? It suggests that we currently do not see a "sustained, unilateral stability, led by spot" strong trend capital inflow, but rather a more impulse-driven inflow under news and emotional switches.

On-chain and structural aspects have also not confirmed that "the reversal has occurred." Glassnode's weekly report in February clearly stated that BTC has already experienced a decisive breakdown, meaning a significant break, as the price fell below the True Market Mean, and the market remains in a defensive state; it also pointed out that the on-chain cost distribution shows that the 66.9k–70.6k range is a high-density area that can absorb near-term selling pressure, but this is more like a defensive zone rather than the starting point of a new main wave. Other tracking based on Glassnode data also mentioned that the current area around $70,200 is merely a "forming but still weak" support zone, while the upper resistance remains concentrated above the 72,000 level, even higher around 82,200. In other words, it feels more like a rebound during the process of bottoming rather than a trend restart after having completed the bottom.

This is also why I believe that the statement, "Every rebound is a good opportunity to short," has some logic in its directional reasoning, but it must include prerequisites at the execution level. If you interpret this statement as **"Every time there is a sharp rise, blindly chase the short," the risk is actually very high, because such news can easily evolve into short covering + leveraged liquidation**. The rise on April 8 was accompanied by significant signs of short squeeze; market reports mentioned that after the ceasefire news, the scale of short position closures was substantial, with the rebound containing typical squeeze components. A more prudent expression should be: Before a large trend reversal is confirmed, a sharp rise is better viewed as a supply replenishment window after risk release, rather than blindly confirming a new upward trend. This judgment is valid; however, when it comes to trading, one cannot equate "correct viewpoint" directly with "correct timing."

The real bottom is still far from being reached. My view is: it can serve as a bearish core framework, but it cannot be said that it has already been proven by the market. The more rigorous statement now is: the bottom has not been confirmed, and the risk of further decline still significantly exists. On the one hand, BTC is still about 42.6% lower than its historical peak; on the other hand, the market has repeatedly pulled back in the 68k–72k range recently, with some research suggesting that if it effectively breaks below 68k again, the negative gamma structure may push the price further towards the 60k range. In other words, there is insufficient evidence to declare "the bottom has formed," while there is more evidence suggesting "it may still probe lower."

Another often overlooked point is that the policy narrative has not continued to strengthen. In mid-March, Citigroup downgraded its 12-month BTC price target from $143,000 to $112,000, one reason being that legislation on the structure of the U.S. crypto market has stalled in the Senate. In other words, even if you do not look at the war, but only consider the mid-term narrative of the crypto industry itself, the previous combination of "policy continuously exceeding expectations, institutional funds continuously pouring in, and risk appetite continuously expanding" is no longer as smooth as last year. In an environment where industry catalysts are weakening and macro constraints remain strong, it is difficult to directly translate a bear market rebound into a trend reversal based solely on a single ceasefire message.

Therefore, overall: this round of BTC's rise is essentially a risk asset valuation repair brought about by the easing of geopolitical conflicts, a "news-driven relief rally," rather than a confirmed trend reversal; under the premise that the ceasefire remains fragile, the macroeconomic environment remains tight, ETF flows are still unstable, and on-chain structures are still defensive, the market appears to be in a phase of oscillation and rebound typical of the latter part of a bear market, rather than the starting point of a new bull market.

When will my viewpoint be weakened? The answer is when four conditions occur simultaneously: First, the ceasefire evolves from a "two-week temporary arrangement" into a more long-term executable agreement; second, oil prices continue to fall, and inflation expectations cool down; third, the Fed's tone clearly shifts to dovish; fourth, BTC re-establishes and continues to recover key resistance areas, while ETFs show consecutive net inflows for several weeks. Before these conditions occur, defining this rise as a "news-driven rebound" is much more prudent than directly calling it a "trend reversal."

The above content is for market analysis only and does not constitute investment advice.