This week in East 8 Time, U.S. stocks and crypto assets synchronized in a pullback, igniting a public frenzy centered around the "Greenland Incident." Many social media accounts crudely linked the weakening of ETH and the pressure on U.S. stocks to this geopolitical news. Under the amplified emotions, the "geopolitical black swan" was packaged as the master switch for all declines. However, Garrett Jin, seen as an agent for "BTC OG/1011 insider whales," publicly refuted this, stating that attributing the market adjustment solely to Greenland is neither professional nor rigorous. This article attempts to return to the data and structure itself, discussing how to identify the true forces driving the market in a high-noise environment, rather than being led by emotional narratives.
The Fermentation of Greenland Public Opinion: The First Scene of Crypto Long-Short Mismatch
● Social Media Dissemination Chain: News related to Greenland first spread in overseas political news circles, and was then quickly "recreated" by crypto KOLs and trading groups, with titles and interpretations escalating to "clouds of war" and "the trigger for global risk asset sell-off." On Weibo, X, and Telegram groups, screenshots, jokes, and out-of-context interpretations piled up, amplifying the originally limited geopolitical changes into a systemic threat in the crypto world.
● Time Window and Scapegoat Mechanism: In the same trading week where ETH weakened and U.S. stock indices faced pressure, risk assets were already in a high-level oscillation range. The natural fluctuations of price adjustments coincided with the timing of Greenland public opinion, prompting investors to instinctively seek an "emotional anchor." The geopolitical narrative provided a ready answer, with many trading logs even equating "ETH decline = Greenland progress," without breaking down the structural pressures of the industry and sectors themselves.
● The Popularity of "Single Causal" Narratives: Some KOLs and media, in their reviews, briefly overlooked liquidity, sector rotation, and changes in risk appetite, compressing the complex multi-factor adjustments into a single statement: "Geopolitical risk escalation leads to sell-off." This single-causal narrative is simple and memorable, making it easy to spread, but it sets up a conflict point with the counterarguments from professional funds, especially those representing whales: Is it geopolitics that drives the market, or are fundamentals and structure the true directors?
Whale Agents Speak Out: Tech Rotation is the Source of Pressure on U.S. Stocks
● Direction of Internal Rotation in Technology: Garrett Jin clearly pointed out that the main reason for the current weakness in U.S. stocks is due to internal rotation within the tech sector—AI-related assets continue to lead, while traditional software and classic computer hardware sectors are under pressure. This style switch causes a pullback in the larger-weight traditional tech components in the index, creating an overall "decline" visual effect that is misread by public opinion as "geopolitical shocks causing tech stocks to collectively hit landmines."
● Transmission Logic of Structural Declines: As leading AI companies absorb funds and valuation premiums continue to expand, small and medium-sized software companies and traditional computer enterprises naturally pull back under pressure from profit expectations and valuation re-pricing. The index compilation mechanism translates this structural differentiation into overall pressure, making it appear as if "tech stocks are down, and the market is scared," when in fact it is a differentiation within the sector, not a synchronized panic sell-off triggered by a single external event, which fundamentally differs from the narrative of "a sound from Greenland causes the global stock market to fall."
● Recalibration of Cognitive Framework: For institutions and professional traders, accepting this explanation means shifting from the emotional model of "grand geopolitical events driving everything" back to the fundamental framework of "sector rotation + liquidity constraints." In this framework, the Greenland public opinion is merely background noise to market fluctuations; what truly needs to be tracked are the AI valuation bubble, internal profit differentiation in technology, and the rebalancing path of funds between U.S. stocks and crypto, rather than fixating on news headlines for emotional trading.
On-Chain Anomalies and New Price Highs: The Imagination Space of 6.572 Million Tokens Transferred
● Large On-Chain Transfers from a Single Source: Reports indicate that approximately 6.572 million FARTCO were transferred to Coinbase, with a nominal value of about $1.99 million, but this data currently comes from a single source, and its authenticity and background remain "to be verified." In the absence of multi-party on-chain intelligence and exchange confirmations, hastily packaging it as "whales fleeing" or "project parties dumping" carries a strong narrative projection color.
● Price New Highs and Mismatched Fund Transfers: During the same period, HTX data showed that Bitcoin's price once broke through $90,000, reaching a new phase high. The timing of the price peak and large on-chain transfers intertwined, leading many observers to naturally place both in the same "causal chain" with Greenland public opinion. However, this sequence of "news first, then transfers, then pullbacks" does not equate to a strict causal relationship; it is more likely just a common process of fund reallocation during high volatility periods.
● Differences in Retail and Professional Perspectives: Retail investors often tend to use a grand narrative to package geopolitical news, large on-chain transfers, and price fluctuations into a linear script of "major events—whale transfers—market peaks." In contrast, professional funds focus more on whether this FARTCO entering Coinbase truly creates sustained selling pressure, whether it is accompanied by the establishment of hedging tools, and whether funds are shifting between single on-chain assets or between crypto and traditional assets. These micro fund flows explain price trajectories far better than the geopolitical story itself.
The Narrative Battle of the Bull Market: The Disintegration and Reconstruction of Traditional Cycle Structures
● Rebuttal to Wintermute Interpretation: In discussions around "Is the bull market over?", some market voices cited Wintermute's related views, interpreting the current volatility as "the end of the four-year halving bull market model in crypto." Garrett Jin directly pointed out that this understanding is a dual misreading of the report and reality: the so-called "traditional crypto bull market cycle has ended" refers to the past simple cycle dominated by a single Bitcoin halving, where the entire market rises and falls, which is being broken, rather than indicating that the current round of increases has been declared over.
● Structural Bull Market and Sector Rotation: From this perspective, "the end of the traditional bull market cycle ≠ the end of the current bull market," but rather means that the bull market is exhibiting structural, phased, and sectoral characteristics: BTC, mainstream public chains, AI concepts, derivative infrastructure, and other different tracks take turns becoming the main characters. Price pullbacks are more about switching between phases and redistributing chips, rather than "the bull-bear switch being turned off." Rigidly applying the old cycle template to the current complex structure can easily misjudge normal rotations as the "starting point of a bear market."
● Noise Amplifiers in the New Macro and Regulatory Environment: In a context where interest rates, regulation, and institutional participation are all markedly different from the previous round, continuing to believe in the historical "halving = bull market" single-variable logic will amplify the dramatic nature of any short-term fluctuations—every pullback is interpreted as a "historical turning point," and tying it to geopolitical public sentiment like Greenland will only further obscure the true trend signals, causing investors to frequently shift positions to the wrong rhythm.
Washington and the Federal Reserve Changes: The True Weighty Variables
● Signals of Clarified Regulatory Path: Currently, the U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee is brewing the release of new crypto legislation texts, which the market generally sees as an important node for Washington's regulatory framework for crypto assets to become clearer. Meanwhile, signals from the Trump camp indicate that they will sign the crypto market regulatory bill as soon as possible, interpreted as a friendly long-term guide for industry compliance and institutional participation, with weight far exceeding the short-term emotional impact of a regional geopolitical news item.
● Federal Reserve Chair Replacement and Liquidity Expectations: Expectations for the replacement of the Federal Reserve Chair are slowly reshaping the market's imagination regarding future interest rate paths and global liquidity. In an environment oscillating between the end of the rate hike cycle and potential easing expectations, the pricing logic of risk assets depends more on the two hard variables of "risk-free rate + regulatory certainty," rather than single-point geopolitical friction. For crypto, this determines whether and at what cost medium- to long-term funds can enter the market.
● Comparison of Magnitudes between Macro and Geopolitical Public Sentiment: In terms of weight, the Senate legislative process, the president's attitude towards regulation, and whether the Federal Reserve changes leadership directly affect the cost of trillions of dollars in funds and compliance thresholds; while public sentiment events like Greenland provide emotional material only at the short-term trading level. Mixing the two not only misjudges the main line of the market but may also cause one to miss the layout window when genuine institutional benefits or liquidity turning points arrive, due to being obsessed with geopolitical gossip.
Trading in Noise: How Professionals Filter Driving Forces
In this round of volatility, the Greenland public opinion, large on-chain anomalies, tech sector rotation, and the policy game between Washington and the Federal Reserve together form a complex background. Geopolitical disputes provide narrative packaging, the transfer of 6.572 million FARTCO and Bitcoin's temporary breakthrough of $90,000 provide on-chain and price material, but what truly shapes the mid-term trend is the internal style switch of tech stocks, the path of crypto legislation, and liquidity expectations.
For professional investors, there is a relatively stable filtering framework: first look at fund flows and sector structure—which tech stocks are bleeding, which crypto track is taking over; then look at policy and liquidity—how regulatory texts and Federal Reserve personnel redefine risk premiums; finally, assess the relative weight of geopolitical events within this structure, rather than using news to explain all price changes. In a phase where high-level oscillation and policy games coexist, those who habitually chase emotional hotspots and replace multi-dimensional analysis with a single story are likely to buy high and sell low in every "Greenland-style" event, repeatedly harvested by funds better at identifying driving forces.
Join our community to discuss and become 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。
