As Bitcoin surged to its historical high range, former Binance CEO Zhao Changpeng (CZ) emphasized in a post on X on Christmas Day that "the true early buyers enter the market amid fear, uncertainty, and doubt." This tweet, released while prices were at historical highs, was widely reported by media outlets such as Cointelegraph, TechFlow, Jin10, and PANews. Coupled with the net outflow from Bitcoin funds and the divergent behavior of some listed companies increasing their holdings, this round of market activity has progressed to a new phase of "high consensus and internal divergence." In a macro environment lacking clear easing signals, this contrarian investment philosophy is becoming a framework for investors to reassess their chip distribution and risk compensation.

Christmas Statement Brings "Contrarian Buying" into the Spotlight at Cycle Highs

On Christmas Day in the UTC+8 time zone, CZ shared investment insights on the X platform, pointing out that people often lament "I should have bought in" when Bitcoin is at historical highs, while the true early buyers enter the market when it is filled with fear, uncertainty, and doubt. This means that when prices are already at historical highs, market sentiment tends to linger more on regret for past "missed opportunities" rather than a calm assessment of current risk compensation. Several domestic and international media outlets quickly followed up, turning this originally philosophical insight into a collective mirror for the entire market to reflect on their own positions and entry points.

Macro Price Resonance: Misalignment of High Assets and Unfulfilled Easing

According to statistics from some macro research institutions and media, the probability of the Federal Reserve maintaining interest rates at its January 2025 meeting is relatively high, while the three major U.S. stock indices have recently hit new closing highs, presenting a structure of "easing expectations unfulfilled, risk assets running high." In this macro context, Bitcoin standing at historical highs means it has entered a phase of "price leading, policy lagging," alongside traditional assets like U.S. stocks. This misalignment increases the overall asset price's sensitivity to changes in sentiment and expectations, amplifying the systemic risks associated with high-level turnover.

Fund Outflows and Corporate Increases: Opposite Choices in the Same Price Range

According to data cited by Jin10 and other media, Bitcoin-related funds such as GBTC have recently experienced single-day net outflows, indicating that some investors are choosing to recoup funds through traditional financial products at high price levels. Meanwhile, the board of the listed company Metaplanet from Japan reportedly decided to further expand its Bitcoin purchase plan, increasing its holdings of this asset within its financial reporting framework. Within the same historical high price range, on one side there are fund products experiencing capital outflows, while on the other side, listed companies continue to expand their balance sheets with purchases. Bitcoin is undergoing a structural differentiation where "chips are migrating from secondary products to balance sheets." Historically, such differentiation often indicates not just differing price judgments, but also misalignments in investment horizons, accounting standards, and risk preferences.

Behind the Capital Differentiation at High Levels: Who is Cashing Out, Who is Extending the Cycle?

Some funds are choosing to realize profits at high price levels through products like GBTC, possibly due to the end of arbitrage, product fee structures, tax optimization, or a cautious attitude towards future volatility; while corporate purchases represented by Metaplanet are more based on a financial perspective of "long-term holding + asset hedging." When prices are at historical highs, the contrasting choices made by short-term and long-term funds at the same price point essentially reflect different pricing of future volatility ranges and holding periods. Looking back at past major cycles, Bitcoin often undergoes a "short-term funds exiting, long-term funds locking in" chip reorganization during prolonged periods of wide fluctuations after prices hit new highs, rather than a simple one-time top or bottom event.

Emotional and Behavioral Misalignment: FOMO Does Not Equate to Real Buying Points

The first half of CZ's statement addresses the common sentiment when prices are at historical highs—most people only realize they "missed lower prices" at this moment. Behavioral finance research shows that herd behavior and price momentum lead many retail investors to start seriously researching assets only when trends are established and media coverage is rampant, rather than allocating time during price downturns and chaotic narratives. After Bitcoin enters the historical high range, the emotional "desire to buy" often erupts, but the actual large-scale capital inflow has often quietly completed during the preceding period of fear. This lag in emotion and behavior causes many investors to "always chase highs" in experience, even if the long-term trend is upward, resulting in a clear pro-cyclical fluctuation in capital curves.

The Time Window for Contrarian Buying: From "Extreme Fear" to "Too Lazy to Discuss"

From past major cycles of Bitcoin, when prices are at historical lows, it is usually accompanied by a decrease in on-chain trading activity, reduced media attention, and shrinking derivatives leverage, with sentiment indices leaning towards fear or even extreme fear. As prices rise, discussion heats up, new user growth accelerates, financing and new narratives emerge densely, and sentiment indices gradually shift towards greed. The truly high-yield related "contrarian moments" often occur when prices are still at mid-low levels, and mainstream perspectives have not yet formed a unified bullish narrative or are even generally skeptical, rather than when they have already entered a widely discussed high range. This aligns closely with CZ's emphasis on "entering the market amid fear, uncertainty, and doubt," and explains why users who are "educated" by the media later find it harder to enjoy the risk premium of the earlier stages.

Current Stage: Strong Consensus, Significant Divergence, It’s the Second Half Rather Than the Beginning

From the density of media reports, the generally high levels of macro assets, and the coexistence of fund outflows and corporate increases in capital structure, Bitcoin currently resembles a stage of "high consensus but increasing divergence." On one hand, mainstream acceptance of Bitcoin as an asset class and its allocation logic has increased; on the other hand, there are significant differences in judgments regarding its next phase of price fluctuations, volatility, and duration. In this second-half environment, CZ's emphasis on "buying amid fear" serves more as risk education for new entrants—reminding them not to treat high price ranges as a so-called "risk-free chasing period," rather than directly endorsing current prices. For long-term funds that have already completed their layouts at lower ranges, this serves as both a mindset review and a form of psychological expectation management for subsequent volatility.

"Killing Line" Metaphor: When Economic Turmoil Meets High-Volatility Assets

TechFlow mentioned in "The 'Killing Line' That Went Viral" that the global economy is in a state of turmoil in 2025, and the concept of the "killing line" from some sociological studies has been introduced into the crypto space: when income, leverage, education, and information gaps accumulate, certain groups are systematically excluded from upward mobility. In the high-volatility, high-leverage environment of the crypto space, this "killing line" often manifests through liquidation, chasing highs and getting trapped, and information lag, causing groups with weaker financial strength and limited pressure capacity to bear a higher probability of loss. This mechanism is not a conspiracy theory but rather a result of structural rules and individual risk management capabilities.

Who is Closer to the "Killing Line" at High Levels?

When Bitcoin is at historical highs, with the strongest narratives, hottest media coverage, and intense FOMO sentiment, the typical profile of high-risk groups often exhibits several characteristics: high leverage ratios, extreme sensitivity of income to principal losses, reliance on single and highly dependent second-hand information sources, and vague entry and exit discipline. If we apply TechFlow's "killing line" concept to the current cycle, those who impulsively chase highs at high levels without risk buffers are more likely to be "liquidated" by prices and leverage in the next round of volatility. From this perspective, CZ's emphasis on "early layout amid fear" at high prices is actually a reminder: the real danger often lies not in fear itself, but in the behavior of participating in the game with short-term get-rich expectations when macro and asset highs overlap.

From Bitcoin to TGE: Potential Scenarios for the Next Round of Risk Release

Media outlets like PANews have issued warnings about a potential peak in TGE (Token Generation Event) in 2026, suggesting that the accumulation of funds and narratives from the previous round often seeks exit channels through concentrated TGEs in the next phase. This means that in a future phase, there may be a collective release of token supply and a dense overlap of unlocking rhythms. If the current historical high range of Bitcoin is being used by some funds as a "reservoir" to provide liquidity for future TGEs, then in terms of time, the high levels of Bitcoin and the peak of TGEs may form a funding chain that transmits from higher-margin assets to higher-risk assets. This is not a proven fact but a structural possibility that investors need to incorporate into their scenario analysis in advance.

Entering at High Levels and Future TGE: What Risk-Return Position Are We In?

If a large number of TGE projects do indeed concentrate on listing in 2026, the funds that have only recently entered the historical high range of Bitcoin will face dual challenges: first, the high volatility or even significant retracement that Bitcoin itself may experience; second, the new narratives and high-risk, high-reward temptations brought by subsequent TGEs, further pulling on positions and risk preferences. From a risk-return structure perspective, establishing large positions only at high levels places oneself in a more vulnerable position of "waiting for future liquidity to take over," rather than being a proactive allocator of capital. The practical implication of contrarian investment here is that the closer one gets to a potential liquidity peak, the more one needs to carefully assess the necessity of each new risk asset allocation.

Contrarian Does Not Mean Indiscriminate Bottom Fishing: Risk Differences Between Bitcoin and Long-Tail Tokens

Even if one acknowledges the philosophy of "buying amid fear," it is essential to distinguish the risk structures of different assets. Bitcoin, as the most valuable, liquid, and widely accepted crypto asset, while experiencing severe drawdowns during systemic panic, has historically shown recovery ability multiple times; whereas many long-tail tokens may lose a significant portion of their value in a single black swan event due to individual project risks (team, compliance, technology, governance). The meaning of contrarian investment differs significantly between leading assets and early high-risk tokens; the former is more about timing mismatches in cyclical fluctuations, while the latter may be a blind acceptance of severe information asymmetry and liquidity exhaustion. Therefore, mechanically applying CZ's words to any TGE or small-cap token may lead to a serious underestimation of risk.

Using Data for Contrarian Investment: A Multidimensional Framework Beyond Just Price

In practice, contrarian investment needs to be combined with multidimensional indicators, rather than simply "buying the dip" when prices fall sharply. Reference dimensions may include: changes in the proportion of long-term holders on-chain, valuation deviation indicators like MVRV, trading volume to market cap ratios, trends in active addresses on-chain, derivatives leverage and funding rates, spot depth and slippage, etc. True meaningful contrarianism is about finding points where "risk compensation significantly improves" in conjunction with valuation, liquidity, and chip structure during periods of pessimistic sentiment, rather than unconditionally increasing positions during any downturn or panic. These data may not provide precise bottom signals but can help investors distinguish whether "risk is being released" or "risk is accumulating" within the same price range.

High-Level Long and Short Game: Who is Taking Whose Position?

The coexistence of fund outflows and corporate increases reflects the long and short game of different capital within the same price range:
• Some institutions or high-net-worth funds may achieve phased reductions by redeeming products, selling chips to small and medium investors who are taking over through over-the-counter channels or secondary markets.
• Another group of companies or long-term funds chooses to incorporate chips into their balance sheets, locking in longer holding periods. In this process of chip migration, retail investors who lack data support and make buy-sell decisions based solely on emotion are likely to become the ones providing liquidity during sharp price fluctuations, rather than those holding pricing power. Observing capital flows, on-chain activity, and changes in product structures can help identify whether one is providing liquidity for longer-term or more professional funds.

High Levels Are Not Necessarily Tops, and Contrarianism Is Not a Universal Key

From historical experience, after Bitcoin reaches a new historical high, there are phases of continued acceleration as well as cases of rapid deep corrections, with price movements being highly path-dependent and difficult to predict using a single indicator or a single statement. Currently, with macro assets generally at high levels, Bitcoin in a historical high range, significant differentiation in capital behavior, and potential risks from the 2026 TGE looming ahead, a "volatile yet directionally uncertain" complex environment has formed. In such an environment, CZ's emphasis on "buying amid fear, uncertainty, and doubt" serves better as a principle reminding investors to pay attention to sentiment and risk compensation, rather than as a specific trading signal or price judgment tool.

At the Crossroads of Christmas: Three Questions Investors Need to Answer

For any investor considering allocating Bitcoin or participating in subsequent TGEs, the more critical questions may be:
• Can your position and cash flow withstand the high volatility of Bitcoin after it reaches historical high levels, or even a significant retracement?
• Is the motivation for the current purchase based on data and risk compensation, or is it driven by FOMO of "everyone else is making money, I can't miss out"?
• In the face of potentially more "brutal" crypto harvesting mechanisms, do you have a data-driven and rule-based position management and stop-loss system? No one's (including CZ's) opinion should be the sole basis for entering or exiting the market; a more reasonable approach is to continuously calibrate your risk tolerance and allocation rhythm using contrarian thinking and data tools, while understanding the macro environment, capital structure, and your own constraints.

Join our community to discuss and become stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh

OKX Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Welfare Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

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。