Compilation | Wu Talks Blockchain

Original link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GpQPiF-RBg

In this episode, Kyle Chasse and Arthur Hayes delve into the logic behind Bitcoin potentially breaking the $1 million mark before 2028. Arthur believes that the world is currently entering a phase of the collapse of the dollar-dominated order, and that the continuously expanding fiscal deficit and debt structure in the U.S. will drive long-term inflation and asset repricing. In this process, Bitcoin will transition from being a "high Beta asset on Nasdaq" to a "hedging tool against the decline of American exceptionalism." He points out that the Federal Reserve and the Treasury are supporting the market through operations like Treasury buybacks, which have created a new push for risk assets. Additionally, Arthur discusses multifaceted topics such as the U.S.-China rivalry, policy response speed, trading strategies, altcoin rotations, and how institutional funds indirectly increase their Bitcoin holdings through publicly listed companies. The overall viewpoint combines global macroeconomics, political rivalry, market structure, and narrative evolution.

The Essence of the U.S.-China Trade War is a Long-Term Trend; Increased Volatility Supports Bitcoin Prices Breaking a Million

Kyle: Arthur, do you think the market has already reflected these changes three weeks after the recent tariff measures were announced?

Arthur: I think people are still holding onto illusions, thinking, "Oh, it won't be that bad." They are not seriously considering the reconstruction of the global monetary, trade, and capital landscape. They don't believe that the U.S. and China will really decouple. But I believe that this trend towards a binary world is inevitable. Countries will try to navigate both sides or choose a camp; we still don't know how this game will ultimately evolve.

Trump merely accelerated a trend that was already in place. He initiated the trade war in 2018, and Biden has continued and strengthened it. Although he has made some concessions, if you understand Trump's negotiation style, you know he always starts with maximal demands, then makes slight concessions to show some conciliatory posture, and then applies pressure again to get the most favorable deal. So I think this pattern will continue, and the market will become more volatile as a result. But the core understanding is: a MOVE of 140 (the U.S. Treasury market volatility index) will immediately trigger a policy response. So there’s no need to worry about Syria or any other events.

When MOVE reaches 140, the volatility is enough to provoke a direct response from policymakers. For example, one day when MOVE hit 172, the U.S. Treasury Secretary went on CNBC to complain about tariffs, saying the bond market was in trouble, and Trump immediately announced a 90-day suspension of tariffs. You will hear them talk about Treasury buybacks, and the Fed's Susan Collins stated they are "prepared to take all necessary measures." The market has shown that the U.S. cannot withstand volatility, and neither can other countries. Bitcoin can thrive in this environment, so we really have no need to worry.

Arthur: I don't think the U.S. can endure the growing pains required to achieve this de-globalization transition. This change will eventually happen, but it won't be completed in six months as Trump hopes. It may take twenty years.

Kyle: That's indeed interesting. Trump won the popular vote and most electoral votes when he took office. Intuitively, I would think that right-wing candidates should win in the upcoming elections in Canada and Europe. But in the recent elections, left-wing parties won. Many say this is related to Trump's policy style, such as economic turmoil and uncertainty. Do you think that's the main reason? If the situation doesn't improve before the midterm elections, how do you think Trump and his administration will view it?

Arthur: I think the recent victory in Canada is more a reaction against the "51st state" sentiment. It's like the U.S. saying, "Hey, Canada, you should listen to us." This is a "united front" posture. There is a similar situation in Europe. The European elite do not actually agree with Trump's approach of seeking compromise by ending the Russia-Ukraine war.

So they unite under the slogan "We are Europe," emphasizing that they act for European interests, stressing sovereignty and autonomy. As for Trump, they see him as a "rude American." Therefore, I don't think this is opposition to his specific policy content, but rather an instinctive aversion triggered by the way and attitude he displays when executing policies.

Recap of the Speech: Macro Policy Drives Asset Repricing; The Logic of Bitcoin's 6-Fold Growth

Kyle: You just finished your speech at TOKEN2049. I couldn't catch it live, but I hope we can find some replay later. Can you summarize the main points of your speech for the audience?

Arthur: In the third quarter of 2022, everyone was very pessimistic about cryptocurrencies and other risk assets. Why? Because interest rates were rising, the bond market was collapsing, the stock market was falling, and FTX had issues. No one wanted to touch cryptocurrencies; Bitcoin dropped to $15,000, and everyone thought it would fall to $10,000—just that kind of atmosphere.

Then, suddenly, Yellen introduced the so-called "non-quantitative easing" policy, which is an aggressive Treasury issuance strategy—massive issuance of Treasury bills and long-term bonds, reintroducing the $2.5 trillion that had been "sterilized" from the Fed's balance sheet back into the global market. From December 2022 to early 2025, risk assets surged overall, Bitcoin increased sixfold, stocks doubled, gold also doubled, and everything performed brilliantly. During this period, the Fed did not actually loosen significantly; it was the Treasury's actions that truly drove the market.

Although today's environment is somewhat different, the issues we see still exist. For example, the new tariff policies, the continuous collapse of the bond market, the stock market plummeting, and concerns that inflation will rise due to China no longer exporting cheap goods—all create uncertainty in the market. Many people will say, "I don't need to hold Bitcoin, and I don't need to hold these assets."

But the key is that when volatility rises, policymakers will respond quickly. Treasury Secretary Yellen goes on television and starts talking about Treasury buybacks, which is actually a way to alleviate pressure on bank balance sheets, allowing banks to lend more money to hedge funds so they can buy Treasuries at auction, engaging in what is called "basis trading." This is what I see as the bottom signal of this cycle—when the Treasury Secretary states on Bloomberg that they will conduct buybacks to support the Treasury market, it's time to "go long on everything."

These hedge funds hold bonds. They engage in a trading structure: buying bonds while simultaneously selling bond futures contracts. Then they take the bonds to the bank and say, "I don't have the money to buy this bond; can you lend me some?" The bank sees that this is U.S. Treasury bonds, which are very liquid collateral, and will lend them money, requiring them to post a certain percentage as margin.

But to make this arbitrage trade profitable, hedge funds need to use a lot of leverage. The lower the bank's leverage requirements, the higher the hedge funds' leverage ratio, and they will be more aggressive in participating in such trades. During Treasury auctions, they don't even care about the price of the bonds; they only care about the spread between the bonds and the derivatives.

Although U.S. debt has reached $36 trillion, this type of trading still holds. As long as they can earn a 10 basis point spread, leveraging 100 times, they are very satisfied.

Kyle: Is this somewhat similar to the basis trading when ETFs were first launched?

Arthur: Not exactly; this is a trading model in the bond market and is not closely related to cryptocurrencies.

Kyle: So you don't think they would use a similar method to buy Bitcoin ETFs?

Arthur: No, this is entirely about dollar liquidity. Hedge funds buy newly issued Treasury bonds. The issue is that as bonds gradually mature, their liquidity decreases, and they are no longer benchmark maturity bonds. At this point, the Treasury can perform "budget-neutral, supply-neutral" operations—issuing new bonds and buying back old bonds. This way, the prices of old bonds will rise, narrowing the spread with futures, allowing hedge funds to profit. They also escape the high capital requirements of old bonds, gaining more room for leveraged operations, and then continue with arbitrage trading.

In my speech, I also mentioned that while everyone is talking about Dogecoin and Musk cutting budgets, the current data shows that the U.S. Treasury's spending increase for the fiscal year 2025 is 22% higher than that for 2024. We are only in the first two months after Trump's administration took office, but the trend is already very clear.

Kyle: When you mention spending growth, which aspect are you referring to? Can you explain further?

Arthur: It is the scale of the fiscal deficit that is growing. The U.S. fiscal year starts in October.

Kyle: So you mean the deficit is larger this year?

Arthur: Exactly. Even with budget cuts, a declining stock market will lead to reduced tax revenues. This structural reality makes it difficult for the government to quickly compress fiscal spending. Even if they cut the budget, it could trigger a recession, activating automatic stabilizers like unemployment benefits, which would further expand government spending. Therefore, the expansion of the fiscal deficit is almost one-directional.

The Treasury needs to find buyers for these Treasury bonds. One method is to provide more leverage support to relative value hedge funds, in conjunction with the Treasury buyback mechanism. This mechanism itself does not directly create new liquidity but indirectly generates more dollars by increasing borrowing and leverage ratios.

Kyle: We haven't officially entered quantitative easing yet, have we? It's just that the pace of quantitative tightening is slowing down. Are there other similar "non-quantitative easing" tools that can help the market?

Arthur: Yes, for example, the Supplementary Leverage Ratio (SLR). According to the new regulations after the global financial crisis, banks need to hold corresponding capital when holding U.S. Treasury bonds. This regulation was intended for responsible risk control but also limits banks' ability to buy bonds.

During the pandemic, after the bond market froze, the Fed temporarily exempted the SLR, allowing banks to buy Treasuries with unlimited leverage. This allowed banks to absorb deposits at a low cost of 1%-2% interest and then use unlimited leverage to buy 4% yielding Treasuries, earning a significant profit. Afterward, this exemption was removed, but now figures like Jamie Dimon (CEO of JPMorgan) and Treasury Secretary Yellen are calling for the exemption to be reinstated.

If the SLR is exempted again, U.S. commercial banks will be able to purchase Treasury bonds without restriction, which is essentially another form of "non-QE." Although it is a regulatory change, its impact on the financial system is not much different from true quantitative easing.

Fiscal Policy is the Main Character: Trump’s Policy Pressure Test and Bitcoin’s Path to a Million Dollars

Kyle: What do you think about the Federal Reserve and the dramatic conflicts we saw between Trump and Powell? At first, he said Powell was too slow and called him a fool, then he retracted some of those statements, even discussing whether to fire him. Now, of course, the goal is to lower interest rates. Do you think we will see a rate cut in May or June?

Arthur: I don't know. But I think it doesn't really matter. The key is not the Federal Reserve, but the Treasury. Ultimately, what Trump is doing is testing the market's bottom line. He said he would fire Powell, and then bond yields soared, so he said, "Okay, I won't fire Powell," knowing that this was the market's tolerance boundary. He said he would raise tariffs to the highest level, and the stock market plummeted 20%, with bond market volatility soaring—that was another boundary. So he is constantly testing how quickly the market can handle changes and then adjusting his strategy accordingly.

Kyle: That's interesting; I don't remember any recent president really testing "pressure points" like he does, operating politics like a business.

Arthur: Indeed, there is no precedent. But what he is doing is not more extreme than what Democrats would do—the policy direction is the same; the difference is only in tone and execution speed. It is precisely for this reason that Bitcoin appears particularly valuable. Because we don't care who is in power; we know they will all print more money. And Bitcoin is the asset that performs best when money is being printed. I can't tell you which stocks will rise, but I know Bitcoin will rise.

Kyle: In your speech, you mentioned that Bitcoin will reach $1 million by 2028, right? So, what is the path that will drive this goal?

Arthur: During Biden's term, the U.S. Treasury net issued about $7.1 trillion in debt. Bitcoin surged as a result, right? And from what we see now, the fiscal deficit in the first few months of Trump's term is already 22% higher than during Biden's.

Kyle: Is this referring to government spending? Or other indicators?

Arthur: It is the fiscal deficit. More specifically, it is the cumulative net fiscal deficit. Current data shows that the fiscal deficit under the Trump administration continues to expand, even though they claim they want to cut spending, which is just a drop in the bucket and not enough at all. Coupled with the structural aging of the U.S. population, social security and healthcare spending will continue to rise, which is unavoidable. The defense budget will also continue to increase, as you need to reconfigure production capacity to manufacture missiles, ammunition, and so on.

So the fiscal deficit will only go in one direction—increasing. Even if Trump really reduces the deficit ratio to 3% by 2028, due to the large debt base, just the interest payments are growing exponentially.

So unless you decide to "shut down the government," it is impossible to spend less than Biden. And clearly, that is not what Trump has promised. We already know what will happen, and we also know how Bitcoin will respond. Now with ETFs, the narrative for institutional investors has changed—Bitcoin is no longer just a "high Beta asset on the Nasdaq," but a "hedging tool against the decline of American exceptionalism." They might think, maybe I should hold some Bitcoin because I can't predict what will happen next with U.S.-China relations, Trump's policies, etc.

Kyle: Hearing you say that reminds me of another point someone mentioned—government spending will continue to expand in the future, and a perfect reason for that is "Make America Great Again," which means bringing all manufacturing back home and building the nuclear-powered ships we haven't built in years, all of which will cost huge amounts of money. So they might propose a "multi-trillion-dollar economic stimulus plan" to rebuild America, subsidize manufacturing, and encourage repatriation. Do you think this is another way of saying, "We need massive fiscal stimulus"?

Arthur: Exactly, it will be packaged like Biden's "CHIPS Act" or the "Green New Deal." Ultimately, politicians need to return to their constituencies with results; they need to say, "Hey, I got you something good." It could be a new factory, some jobs, or a new chip manufacturing center. If Trump says, "I know you don't like deficits, but I got you a bill that will allow you to build an aircraft manufacturing plant and a wafer fab," do you think the legislators would refuse? No. They want to be re-elected, so they must stimulate the economy in their districts.

And banks, seeing these government-backed projects, will be more willing to lend. "There are government projects backing this? Then I'm willing to lend." Credit expands, the economy turns, everyone has jobs, income, and is willing to consume. Yes, there will be inflation, but if everyone has jobs and decent income, will they really care? This is the script I see for future medium to long-term fiscal expansion: the government spends money, the public supports it, and the economy operates.

The Liquidity Surge in 2026 May Push Bitcoin to $250,000

Kyle: Do you think the peak of this bull market will be in 2025? If so, what price do you think Bitcoin will reach in this cycle?

Arthur: I still believe the target is $250,000 for Bitcoin in 2025. I think the real liquidity climax—the stage where money creation reaches its peak—will occur between 2026 and 2027. Because in the U.S., the term of the Federal Reserve Chair will end in May 2026, and if Trump is re-elected, they may not be able to fully control the political apparatus, but they will definitely appoint someone who supports "printing money" and pushing the "Make America Great Again" agenda. By then, we may see an extremely dovish Federal Reserve.

So starting no later than May 2026, we will see an extremely loose cycle, and 2026 to 2027 could be wildly extreme. All tools may come into play simultaneously: QE, relaxation of leverage ratios, Treasury buybacks, yield curve control, etc. Everyone will be on Trump's side, and the market will begin to overprice future easing, and then we will experience a wave of correction.

Kyle: That is indeed the time we should "stay alive and participate in the market."

Arthur: Absolutely.

Kyle: Assuming things develop as you say, which is the "crazy phase" you mentioned earlier. This will happen before 2028, so do you think the $1 million target could be achieved earlier, or do you think it will happen at that time?

Arthur: The market may peak between 2026 and 2027. Subsequently, we will realize that market expectations are too high, and returns may be lower than expected. Perhaps the Republican Party will face electoral challenges, and the policy direction will need to adjust. Plus, we cannot predict what will happen in China; there are too many variables. But I believe that globally, we are on a path of money printing, and once this narrative takes root, the market will overextend its expectations for the future, ultimately having to return to reality.

Kyle: What is your current allocation in liquidity crypto assets? How do you distribute between Bitcoin and mainstream coins?

Arthur: About 60% is Bitcoin, 20% is Ethereum, and the rest is other tokens.

Kyle: Everyone is talking about Ethereum now. For me, it is the only chain where you can confidently allocate a $500 billion DeFi position without worrying about major issues. Solana seems not to have stood the test of time; what do you think about Ethereum's current position?

Arthur: I think Solana is currently the most undervalued Layer 1 network in the market. From a fundamental perspective, it is very secure, being a PoS network, with a large number of developers and high locked value. These are real advantages. We focus on the rate of change and market expectations. Solana's rise from $7 to $300 was due to the surge in meme coins and on-chain transactions, with adoption happening at a rapid pace. But even at $300, its market cap still hasn't surpassed Ethereum. We are trading based on price, not total market cap.

So Solana's price will certainly rise. If there is a massive monetary easing and investors shift from Bitcoin to altcoins, we might see Ethereum outperform Solana, but it could also be the other way around, especially when prices start to rise and the narrative changes. People will say, "Ethereum is great again; it has the most developers," and then the price will rise accordingly.

Kyle: So people will say, "We need to build real DeFi; let's go to Solana." When meme coins are popular, Solana becomes popular. What other projects do you think are worth paying special attention to?

Arthur: We invested in Pendle and are also investors and advisors for EtherFi. I believe the next phase of the narrative is "fundamentals season": Do you have real users? Are they paying for the service? Is this revenue and profit being fed back to token holders through the protocol? There are indeed some projects that meet all these conditions.

I have traded altcoins for ten years and have seen too many worthless coins; now it is finally time for me to see "money coming into my pocket." I am tired of those VC games and junk ICOs. I want to see real projects with users that are live and starting to generate profits. If it is a new narrative that hasn't launched yet, that can be traded for fun. But if it is an already launched project, I won't buy those new coins with high FDV, low circulation, and prices that will only go down.

We are very optimistic about Pendle, which is the largest on-chain fixed income platform, already profitable, and returns profits to PENDLE holders. We are also very optimistic about EtherFi, which is building a "new type of bank" in crypto.

I recommended EtherFi's crypto card on Twitter. I have seen many similar products, but this one has reasonable fees, practical functions, and can be linked to Apple Pay. I believe they will accumulate a very sticky user base. This card is like the "American Express card of the crypto world."

They also promise to use revenue to buy back tokens and return the repurchased tokens to ETH stakers. So if it is an already launched project that can do these things, we will be very interested.

Kyle: For the viewers watching this video, whether they are newcomers or experienced veterans, do you have any advice? Especially regarding asset allocation, rebalancing, or entry strategies?

Arthur: You first need to define your "return threshold"—who are you comparing yourself to? At Maelstrom, our benchmark is Bitcoin. I can buy Bitcoin directly without paying you a salary. So you need to tell me why your performance is worth hiring you.

We invest in altcoins, early projects, and do consulting to outperform Bitcoin. In other words, this is our "threshold return."

Of course, for another person, the threshold might be an annualized 5% because they are investing with borrowed money. Then they need to ensure their annualized return exceeds the borrowing cost.

Or they might be a long-term investor who believes in Bitcoin and the narrative of currency devaluation, wanting to buy Bitcoin and hold it for ten years to outperform fiat currency. It completely depends on your personal situation and goals.

So before investing, you must clearly define your goals, and only then can you check if your investments are truly achieving those goals. If not, then you need to adjust your strategy. Don't wait until after the fact to make excuses for a bad investment, saying, "I bought it for that goal." That would be too late.

The Logic of Bull Market Rotation: Bitcoin Breaking the Peak Triggers Altcoin Season Signal

Kyle: I think you and I are alike; sometimes we also play in this casino, buying some high-risk coins, which is indeed quite thrilling. When prices surge 50 times, it feels like a shot of dopamine. But what do you think is a suitable proportion of high-risk, high-reward Beta investments in their asset allocation for those watching?

Arthur: If you can't sleep at night because of price fluctuations, it means your position is too heavy.

Kyle: I completely agree. I have experienced that, especially when leveraging borrowing with Aave or Avalanche, borrowing and then investing it back in. Then if Bitcoin drops a little, you become so anxious that you can't sleep. That state is really terrible.

Assuming Bitcoin returns to its historical high, what signs could define that "altcoin season" has really arrived? — But before we move on to the next topic, I have to interject. I have recently been using a Bitcoin auto-accumulation trading strategy, and it has been very effective. In just 45 days, I have turned 1 Bitcoin into 1.033 Bitcoins. If the trend continues, I expect to increase from 1 Bitcoin to 1.27 or 1.28 Bitcoins.

For example, if you start with 0.1 Bitcoin and stick to this strategy without interruption or withdrawals, ten years later you will have 1.16 Bitcoins. If Bitcoin rises to $1 million by then, this initial investment, which was only worth $9,500, will turn into an asset worth over a million.

If you haven't watched the interview I did with Ash from Sequence, the video link is in the description below. I will also put a jump tag at the end for you to easily watch it. This could be one of the most powerful and robust wealth accumulation strategies. Now, back to the interview.

Arthur: Personally, I believe Bitcoin dominance will return to levels seen before 2021, which is roughly in the range of 40% to 70%. Once Bitcoin reaches its historical high, people will start to rotate their investments. "Is the bull market back? Then altcoins should outperform Bitcoin, right?" Although this "should" is just theoretical, market sentiment is ignited this way.

So everyone starts to return to the ecosystem. "The bull market is established; we went from 70 to 110, then back to 70, and now we've broken through 110 again, maybe even rising to 150 or 200." If the trading volume increases alongside the price rise and the technical charts look good, typical capital rotation behavior will occur. The market will enter a phase of "digging up junk coins and searching for hundredfold coins," with risk appetite fully recovering.

The Fantasy of Strategic Reserves Shattered: The U.S. Cannot "Directly Print Money to Buy Bitcoin"

Kyle: Do you think there is a possibility, like sometimes I fantasize about this scenario: a country's "strategic reserves" start to buy Bitcoin on a large scale, and then other countries see this is real and follow suit, leading to a severe supply shock in the market, causing Bitcoin to surge by $10,000 or $20,000 daily, quickly absorbing liquidity from the market? Just like we occasionally see phenomena—Trump Coin (TRUMP) suddenly becomes popular, and all altcoins drop by 80%, with all funds being absorbed. Do you think there could really be a wave of Bitcoin dominance rising in an adoption cycle, where everyone abandons altcoins and only Bitcoin stands out? Of course, I think eventually funds will rotate back to altcoins, but do you think there will be an extreme phase where Bitcoin shines alone?

Arthur: Actually, we have somewhat experienced this situation before. But I personally do not believe in the idea of "strategic reserves buying Bitcoin," especially when it comes to the country everyone loves to mention— the United States. The U.S. is a deficit country, and the only way it could hold Bitcoin through "strategic reserves" is by not selling the portion seized from law enforcement—like those 20,000 Bitcoins.

But I really can't imagine an elected politician openly saying, "We are going to print money to buy Bitcoin." That would be too hard for voters to accept—let alone the fact that Bitcoin is often portrayed in public opinion as a "geek club" and "meme trading." Do you really want the public to think you are standing up for those people? I think that is impossible.

What is more likely to happen is a "China-style model": if you have excess electricity capacity, then mine Bitcoin, and store the mined Bitcoins in the treasury, but do not buy them on the market. Or like the UAE, convert surplus hydrocarbons into electricity to mine Bitcoin for reserves. But you wouldn't directly use fiscal deficits to buy Bitcoin. You are more likely to "print money and issue cash checks" because that can translate into votes. In simple terms, the fantasy of "strategic reserves buying Bitcoin" will not happen at all.

Kyle: I agree. We actually talked a bit about similar content last time. Now, more and more companies are starting to mimic MicroStrategy's approach to buying Bitcoin. Although there won't be a national-level strategic reserve plan, we do see that the amount of Bitcoin purchased by companies even exceeds that of ETFs. Do you think this trend will continue? Additionally, with Howard Lutnick's son launching a fund similar to 21.co, could these factors combine to create a real supply shock?

Arthur: We participated in the UPXI transaction, and their company will also include some Bitcoin on their balance sheet. After all, there is indeed a group of investors in the market who cannot invest in Bitcoin ETFs but want exposure to crypto assets. Their institutional regulations do not allow them to hold cryptocurrencies directly, but they can invest in U.S. stocks. So Michael Saylor seized this opportunity.

He told these people, "You can't buy Bitcoin? No problem, I will buy it. My company's balance sheet is full of Bitcoin. When you buy my stock, it's equivalent to indirectly owning crypto assets." As a result, their stock prices were pushed up, and the trading premium far exceeded the net asset value. This is the model they are playing; as long as there is demand, they can continue doing this.

Essentially, these investors know very well: "I want crypto assets, but I can't buy them directly. So I'll buy stocks of these compliant companies that allow holding." Thus, these companies adopt a "quasi-fiscal strategy" to boost their stock prices. I believe this method will continue for a while.

Especially since Michael Saylor's "MicroStrategy" is now one of the S&P 500 component companies, it means they have the ability to continuously raise money from the market to "increase positions." Of course, this pace may stop after Bitcoin's volatility decreases. At that point, these stocks may no longer experience significant ups and downs, and market enthusiasm may naturally fade.

Kyle: Recently, we have also seen Bitcoin's movements increasingly resemble those of gold, starting to decouple from the stock market. Previously, Bitcoin and the stock market were strongly correlated; do you think this decoupling is genuinely happening, or is it just a short-term phenomenon?

Arthur: I think we have seen a certain degree of decoupling. But I still believe there will be a wave of large-scale selling—when Trump again declares he will increase tariffs on China to show his tough stance, the market will react violently. Bitcoin may also experience some volatility.

However, now everyone is finally starting to understand: the truly key indicator is "volatility in the bond market." Whenever bond market volatility spikes, it is a moment of monetary easing, and this is precisely the environment where Bitcoin performs best. So I think we need another actual market validation for the public to fully understand this logic.

You ask me if Bitcoin and the Nasdaq will again be highly correlated like in early April? I don't think so. This time, Bitcoin should perform more steadily—not necessarily surging, but it won't crash like the stock market.

Kyle: Indeed, this kind of movement has rarely occurred in Bitcoin's history. It has always been traded as a "tech stock," and now it has finally shed that label.

Arthur: This is a good thing; it's really great.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。