When Bitcoin oscillates around $77,000, the market may superficially appear to be merely consolidating at a high level, but it is actually undergoing a deeper repricing process. The price has not collapsed, but it has also lost clear upward momentum; this state is often not a victory for the bulls but rather a signal that the macro environment and capital structure are beginning to dominate the trend. Against this backdrop, viewing a 'worst-case drop to $40,000' as a stress test rather than an emotional prediction aligns more closely with the risk management logic in professional investing.
From a macro perspective, Bitcoin is still viewed by global capital as a high-volatility, liquidity-sensitive risk asset. When the policy rates of major economies remain at relatively high levels for an extended period, the discount rate for capital naturally rises, causing the market's patience for the 'future narrative' to decline. Even though there are signs of inflation cooling, as long as real interest rates remain positive, it is difficult for risk assets to achieve valuation expansion. In such an environment, Bitcoin is no longer just a matter of its own supply and demand but is reassessed within the framework of 'global risk appetite.'
The second structural factor that must be addressed is the behavioral changes brought about by institutional capital entering the market. Spot ETFs have successfully integrated Bitcoin into traditional asset allocation systems, while also exposing it to stricter risk control disciplines. When the market enters a risk contraction phase, adjustments from these funds tend to be more concentrated and synchronized. Selling pressure may not necessarily stem from a deterioration of fundamentals, but rather as a result of an overall reduction in risk budgets. The logic of 'holding without selling,' which was previously dominated by retail investors, does not apply here, and thus the speed of price corrections is amplified.
On-chain data provides another calmer perspective. When comparing prices with the cost structure of long-term holders, it can be observed that areas that truly exhibit 'characteristics of a cycle bottom' are usually accompanied by a significant disappearance of profit-taking, the exit of short-term speculative funds, and the reaccumulation of trading volume at low levels. When there is still a large amount of leverage in the market, prices often struggle to complete corrections all at once. This is also why the market needs to leave space for deeper pullbacks before the deleveraging process is fully completed.
So, what exactly does 40,000 represent? It is not necessarily an exact bottom prediction, but rather a reasonable tail scenario. Under macro conditions that have not yet shown a clear easing, a strong dollar, and synchronized pressure on risk assets, a chain reaction within the crypto market may be triggered. Forced liquidations in the futures market, declining collateral values on lending platforms, and pressured cash flows for miners can all occur simultaneously, leading prices to rapidly seek areas that can absorb supply. Historical experience shows that such areas typically fall at price levels that most participants find 'hard to imagine yet must accept.'
It should be emphasized that incorporating 40,000 into the risk framework does not equate to denying Bitcoin's long-term narrative. On the contrary, a mature market perspective allows for significant price volatility at different stages of the cycle. The truly critical question is whether investors have the capacity to survive the worst-case scenarios. This includes restraint on leverage, reasonable matching of fund durations, and the psychological ability to withstand volatility.
Overall, 77,000 is more like an observation zone than a safe zone. Whether prices can stabilize again depends on liquidity expectations, institutional capital behavior, and whether the deleveraging process shows substantial improvement. Until then, treating 40,000 as a hypothetical value for stress testing can actually help investors make more rational allocation decisions. The market has never lacked predictions; what is truly scarce is the ability to maintain discipline in a highly uncertain environment.
