On January 20, 2026, at 8:00 AM UTC+8, the price of Bitcoin briefly fell below $92,000, with a 24-hour pullback range roughly between 0.7%–1.2%. Accompanying this round of pullback, the entire market saw a liquidation scale of about $865 million, with short-term high-leverage long positions being the first to be affected and passively exiting. The price fluctuations combined with the liquidation data created a temporarily tense market sentiment, but against the backdrop of continued net inflows into spot ETFs, institutional holdings, and ongoing ecological development, most medium to long-term bulls did not view this as a trend reversal, but rather as a "shock" caused by a sudden change in rhythm, rather than a structural "collapse."
Losing the $92,000 Level: Liquidations Amplified Volatility
From the price trajectory, Bitcoin experienced a pullback below $92,000 on January 20 after several days of rising and repeatedly testing high levels, with the overall amplitude controlled within a range of about 0.7%–1.2%. Compared to previous rounds of severe adjustments, this time felt more like a relatively mild technical pullback with a faster rhythm. Behind the volatility, the approximately $865 million in liquidations became the core figure of market attention, primarily stemming from the concentrated liquidation of short-term high-leverage long positions. As the price retreated from its highs, over-leveraged funds were forced to liquidate when margin levels fell short, a typical "bubble-popping" process that amplified the downward momentum during the session and accelerated the cooling of short-term sentiment. Some market opinions directly linked this round of liquidations to the "escalation of trade tensions between the US and Europe leading to over $865 million in liquidations," viewing macro news as the main explanatory framework for this pullback. However, in the absence of more granular transaction and position data to support this, a more prudent understanding is that, at a time of rising external uncertainties, the already crowded long leverage began to cool, with macro narratives and technical liquidations overlapping, resulting in a seemingly severe but historically not extreme decline.
US-EU Trade Tensions: How Macro Shocks Transmit to Cryptocurrency Prices
The most discussed macro variable surrounding this round of pullback is the escalation of trade tensions between the US and Europe and the renewed expectations of tariffs. Increased tariffs, supply chain adjustments, and regulatory uncertainties can raise global risk premiums, causing traditional market demand for safe-haven assets and volatility to rise in tandem. In such an environment, risk assets and crypto assets are often repriced through multiple channels: on one hand, high-volatility assets like stocks, commodities, and crypto assets face emotional contraction, with funds more inclined to tighten leverage and return to more liquid assets; on the other hand, in the derivatives market, margin requirements increase as volatility rises, leading exchanges and brokers to impose stricter risk controls on high-leverage positions. This dual path of "emotional contagion + margin contraction" often results in Bitcoin reflecting severe volatility when macro risks rise, rather than a straightforward linear trend. In this pullback, the macro-level tense sentiment combined with the already accumulated high-leverage long positions caused the price to quickly dip in key ranges, appearing as if some news had "pressed the stop-loss switch," but in reality, it was a concentrated release of multiple factors. As for specific political events mentioned in some discussions, such as Trump's speeches, there is currently insufficient evidence to prove a direct and singular causal relationship with the recent drop below $92,000; a more reasonable approach is to view them as part of the macro noise rather than the "sole culprit."
ETFs Still Accumulating: Funds Voting with Their Feet
Beyond the market volatility and leverage liquidations, a less noisy but more significant funding clue is the continued inflow into Bitcoin spot ETFs. Some market opinions assert, "ETF inflows offset short-term volatility, and the long-term outlook remains constructive," which reflects institutional funds' attitude towards such pullbacks: viewing them more as price fluctuations rather than damage to long-term logic. Unlike traditional short-term speculative funds, spot ETFs attract passive and medium to long-term funds aimed at allocation—they typically build positions and rebalance according to predetermined ratios, showing less sensitivity to intraday or weekly fluctuations, and are more concerned with risk-return relationships over months or even years. As ETF products continue to absorb Bitcoin and are held in custody by institutions, some circulating chips are locked in pools that are difficult to exit quickly, pushing the market structure from one dominated by high-frequency trading and high leverage towards a pattern where "slow variables" hold greater weight. In this round of market activity, while short-term high-leverage longs were liquidated, long-term funds like ETFs steadily entered the market, creating a clear picture of contrasting funding structures: short-term may be dominated by "shorts" driving volatility, but on a longer dimension, funds are voting with their feet, reinforcing the "long" narrative.
Gold Surpassing $4,700: Divergence and Contrast of Safe-Haven Sentiment
In stark contrast to Bitcoin's short-term pullback, spot gold historically surpassed $4,700/ounce during the same period, with an annual increase of about 8.8%, delivering an impressive performance in the safe-haven asset arena. In an environment of rising trade tensions and inflation expectations, traditional funds first embraced the already validated safe-haven tool: gold, which has deep liquidity, a mature pricing system, and is widely held by central banks. The narrative of Bitcoin as "digital gold" has taken root, but in reality, it is still more often viewed as a high-beta risk asset in the short term, with its reactions to macro sentiment changes often amplified: when risk appetite rises, its gains often outpace most assets, while when risk appetite declines, its pullbacks are equally pronounced. From a longer-term perspective, Bitcoin is still vying for safe-haven pricing power: its on-chain supply elasticity, halving cycles, and global circulation attributes provide a narrative foundation that distinguishes it from traditional assets. However, this does not mean that one must choose between gold and Bitcoin in current allocations; rather, the coexistence of gold's stable rise and Bitcoin's high-volatility pullback suggests a "core + offensive" combination strategy—using mature safe-haven assets like gold as the base of the portfolio while viewing Bitcoin as an offensive asset with profit amplification potential during macro and technical dual-cycle resonance, rather than a singular "safe-haven substitute."
From Ethereum Whales to New Public Chains: Long-Term Layouts Beyond Price
If we shift our focus from Bitcoin's short-term candlestick patterns, we can see a quieter but equally important long-term mainline. For example, Trend Research, under Yi Lihua, currently holds approximately 626,778.65 ETH, with a total value of about $1.94 billion based on the latest valuation. This kind of top-tier capital's heavy and long-term holding of mainstream assets like Ethereum is a real vote of confidence in the value of public chain infrastructure, indicating that institutions have not chosen to withdraw significantly in a high-volatility environment. Meanwhile, at the public chain and DeFi levels, Aptos launched Tapp Exchange, attempting to provide a pivot for a new round of applications at the infrastructure level; the Solana ecosystem's Kamino issued USD1, adding new pricing and liquidity options for on-chain financial tools. These actions indicate that developers and project teams have not hit the brakes due to a short-term pullback in Bitcoin; instead, they continue to lay the groundwork for the next cycle during price fluctuations. In terms of regulation, South Korea is advancing digital asset regulatory reforms, planning to abolish the requirement for exchanges to bind to a single bank, hoping to release more market vitality within a compliant framework; meanwhile, Georgia in the US has ordered Crypto Dispensers to cease operations, reflecting a tightening of risk awareness and regulatory attitudes in certain jurisdictions. The intertwining of capital flows, technological innovation, and regulatory differentiation forms a grand backdrop for the crypto industry; in contrast, Bitcoin's pullback from its highs to below $92,000 is merely a short scene in this long film and far from the story's final chapter.
After the Pullback: The Temperature Gap Between Trader Panic and Long-Termism
Considering the multiple factors of market dynamics, funding, and macro conditions, this round of Bitcoin pullback appears more as a natural result of high-leverage liquidations and macro noise rather than a sudden fundamental change or a catastrophic turning point triggered by a single negative factor. On one hand, the short-term leverage accumulated earlier struggled to withstand margin pressures during amplified volatility, automatically triggering concentrated liquidations; on the other hand, the trade tensions between the US and Europe, along with related political and economic events, formed a backdrop for emotional amplification but did not shake Bitcoin's core position in the halving cycle, compliance process, and institutional allocation logic. Continuous inflows into ETFs, mainstream asset holdings by top institutions, and the steady construction of public chain and DeFi ecosystems collectively support the integrity of Bitcoin's long-term bullish framework, making the "collapse theory" seem more like a temporary emotional amplification rather than an accurate depiction of reality. For individual traders, what is more concerning is not the price's up-and-down fluctuations themselves, but the excessive interpretation of short-term volatility and the impulse to find a "sole culprit" for every bearish candle—this narrative habit can easily obscure the real need to focus on position management, leverage levels, and cycle recognition. In the foreseeable future, as long as there are no systemic or structural shocks at the macro level, such pullbacks are more likely to be recorded in history as a small interlude about "capital redistribution" and "risk education": impatient leveraged funds are forced to exit, while patient long-term funds optimize costs amid volatility, and the industry itself continues to advance the construction of infrastructure and compliance frameworks during the fluctuations.
Join our community to discuss and grow stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits 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。
