“Creator Says” is a dialogue column launched by Foresight News, where we ask outstanding creators selected each month questions about market hot topics and compile the collected results into writing, gathering diverse opinions to explore deeper thinking.

Written by: Outstanding content creators of Foresight News August 2026

Compiled by: Foresight News

Since August, the U.S. Treasury has expanded expectations for liquidity release through bond buybacks. Combined with the accelerated advancement of Washington’s crypto regulatory policies, Bitcoin has rebounded sharply by about 25% from its mid-year low, briefly surpassing $81,000. The inflow of ETF funds and short-seller liquidations have further amplified the rise, and the voices of a "return of the bull market" are quickly gaining momentum. Optimists have envisioned a new wave of bull market, while the cautious still feel it is merely a strong rebound. As the clouds begin to lift, is a new wave of crypto bull market truly on the way?

This issue of "Creator Says" focuses on "the return of the bull market." We have invited top creators from the August 2026 list of Foresight News, including IOSG Ventures Mario, Fire Research Institute, BlockSec, Zeuspace Yao Kun, JamesX, and Stablehunter. We especially invited Foresight News deputy editor Joe Zhou to join this discussion.

We posed the five questions: "Is the bull market coming?" "How do macro policies constrain the market?" "What drives narrative changes?" "How to allocate assets?" and "What are the potential risks?" Below are the answers we collected.

1. Recently, the market is generally discussing the "return of the bull market," but there are many voices within the community that believe it is just a strong rebound or a short squeeze, and we cannot directly declare the arrival of a bull market. How do you view the current market stage? What signals would lead you to confirm the bull market?

IOSG Ventures Mario: First, I acknowledge that the rebound is real. Many altcoins have indeed risen from historically low ranges—ether.fi's TVL was at $2.85 billion in June and returned to $4.26 billion in August; ARB's market cap was just over $500 million in mid-August. From that position, any marginal improvement would be magnified into a two-week gain of 40%. BTC rose nearly 30% in August, surpassing $80,000. The line from Robinhood, combined with the shift in macro sentiment, has ignited this wave.

However, I tend to define it as a recovery after a deep pullback, rather than the starting point of a new bull market. The reasons are simple: BTC dominance is still at 59%, the Altcoin Season Index is still below 50, and the money is still hiding in BTC rather than being dispersed. What's happening is a "rotation," not an "inflow."

To truly recognize a bull market, I need to see three things:

First is sustainability. It’s not a two-week 40% rise; it’s about three to six months of sustained highs, with buying support at every pullback. A short squeeze will only give you the initial rally.

Second is opening the gateway for incremental capital. After the spot ETF, what is the next avenue for bringing new money in? Brokerage channels, the bi-directional channel for tokenized stocks, or corporate balance sheets? If we can’t identify one, we’ll still be engaged in stock games.

Third, and most crucially, there must be a prominent player. Every bull market has a clear leading narrative: 2017 was ICOs, 2020-21 was DeFi Summer plus NFTs, 2023-24 is spot ETFs combined with memes and Solana. Up to today, there hasn’t been an acknowledged protagonist for this round.

The two most vocal candidates right now are one is on-chain exchanges—Perp DEX achieved $18 trillion in transaction volume just in the second quarter, significantly capturing a considerable share of the futures market; the other is tokenization of stocks and brokerage chains—Nasdaq's tokenized stock rules were approved in March, and the SEC proposed Regulation Crypto Assets in August, with Robinhood itself launching on-chain. The one who can truly bring in new users from outside will be the protagonist of this round.

If there’s no protagonist, then it’s just a beautiful short squeeze.

Fire Research Institute: We assess the current stage as the early phase of a market confidence reversal at the end of a bear market and the beginning of a bull market, but the trend has not been fully confirmed by spot buying. There are two early characteristics: The market can quickly extend, and after high-level consolidation, it does not effectively break down. The approximately 25% rise in August and the retreat to around $77,000 after peaking at $80,000 aligns with this pattern. Short-term, we must separate the short squeeze from the trend; this phase, rapidly ascending from a low base, has had a considerable part stemming from shorts being forced to cover, creating a rapid sound effect; short squeezes can create speed, but it is the spot market that confirms direction. Next, we need to observe whether there continues to be sustained and authentic demand from ETFs and institutional configurations; the spot Bitcoin ETF recorded approximately $3.5 billion in net inflow in August, but at the beginning of September, it encountered hundreds of millions in outflows on a single day. The ability for buying to take the baton is the test for stage transition. Looking at the previous peak of approximately $126,000, $77,000 is still a relatively low position, with significant room for growth above. We interpret this price level as an improvement in asset quality, with regulation, institutionalization, and infrastructure being more complete than during the last round, and the price has not yet fully accounted for these improvements.

The Fire Research Institute team has been persistently indicating since mid-May that the market has entered a "high cost-performance interval" and reaffirmed on July 6 and July 13 when Bitcoin was around $60,000; on-chain whales have been accumulating and OTC transactions have amplified, combined with this round of short-squeeze rises, indicating that the market is shifting from panic selling to long-term accumulation. In the short term, we need to observe whether spot demand can take over the short squeeze; in the medium term, we will see if these three things—re-allocation, regulatory dividends, and RWA fundraising—can happen simultaneously. The resonance of these three factors would shift this period from a short squeeze into the starting point of a new cycle.

BlockSec: I remain quite cautious about defining the current situation as the "return of the bull market." This latest round of increases has indeed been strong, but there are clear factors of short-squeeze involved. On August 20, during the rapid rise of the market, the scale of short liquidations in the crypto market reached approximately $2.7 billion within 24 hours. On the other hand, there has also been a noticeable net inflow of funds to the U.S. spot Bitcoin ETF.

So my judgment is that this round of activity cannot simply be understood as a short squeeze, but rapid price increases alone are not enough to confirm a new long-term bull market.

I prefer to look for signals at three levels. The first is price, the second is funds, and the third is usage.

Price reacts first; on the funds layer, we need to see if ETF and institutional funds are consistently entering, not just a few days of inflow. However, I believe the most important is still the third layer: Has crypto generated more real usage? For example, is there sustained growth in stablecoin payments? Are on-chain transactions and financial activities expanding? Are traditional financial institutions genuinely incorporating digital assets into their business system?

From the clients and partners that BlockSec interacts with, we do feel that more and more institutions are beginning to seriously address the issues of digital assets entering real businesses. If this demand continues, I believe it is a better indicator that the market has entered a new phase than any specific price point.

So if I had to define "bull market confirmation," my standard might not be how much BTC breaks through, but whether after the price rises, capital and real businesses also remain.

Zeuspace Yao Kun: I believe the current cryptocurrency market is more accurately positioned as being in the confirmation stage of transitioning from the later stage of this round of bear market to a new rising cycle. We can’t simply define it as the "return of the bull market," but we also cannot merely understand this round of increase as a short squeeze.

First, this round of activity indeed initially displayed obvious characteristics of short covering. The market had previously experienced a long period of decline and low volatility, resulting in crowded short positions. Therefore, when macro expectations and market sentiment changed, a concentrated covering was easy to see, pushing prices up rapidly.

However, secondly, this rise does not entirely rely on leverage and short squeezing. After the rapid rise caused by the shorts, the prices of most mainstream coins did not quickly lose momentum, and there has been sustained inflow from ETFs and spot capital. Beyond BTC, mainstream assets like ETH and SOL have started gaining capital attention. This indicates that there is a certain degree of real allocation demand in the market, distinguishing it from a purely technical rebound driven by derivatives.

Nevertheless, it is still too early to proclaim that a new bull market has officially arrived. A true bull market requires a broader expansion of funds, including sustained growth in stablecoin supply, effective breakthroughs and stabilization of prices for mainstream coins, recovery of market activity, and the gradual shift of funds from BTC to ETH and other mainstream assets, along with a macro liquidity environment turning favorable. Currently, these conditions have only seen partial improvement and have not formed a comprehensive positive feedback cycle.

Therefore, I prefer to define the current market as an "early reversal and trend confirmation stage." The next most important thing is not whether the price can continue rising rapidly, but whether during the first obvious pullback, ETF and spot capital continue to support, as well as whether BTC can hold key support and break through previous important resistance areas. If these conditions can be met, then this round of activity is more likely to gradually evolve from a strong rebound into a true new bull market.

JamesX: Personally, I hope we are currently in the early stages of a bull market, but the market overall is constantly changing and still requires reliance on external factors to continuously update judgments. For example, the yield on U.S. 10-year Treasuries has risen to 4.79%, and Japan's 10-year yield has also hit 3%, reaching a new high since 1996.

Polymarket trading data shows that the probability of the Federal Reserve raising interest rates by 25 basis points in September has risen to about 59%, while the probability of keeping rates unchanged is around 40.5%. Meanwhile, market expectations for the mid-term elections are also changing, with the probability of the Republican Party losing control of the House reaching about 89% and losing control of the Senate about 51%.

These changes point collectively to rising funding costs and decreased market risk appetite. Rising U.S. Treasury yields increase the opportunity cost of holding Bitcoin, while expectations of an interest rate hike in Japan may trigger the closure of yen arbitrage positions. If the Republican Party loses control of Congress, the ability of the Trump administration to advance crypto-friendly policies will also be constrained.

Thus, even if Bitcoin is still in the bull market cycle, there may be significant fluctuations and deleveraging in the short term, and price rebounds are likely to face suppression. Only when bond yields peak, interest rate hike expectations cool down, or market funds flow back in will Bitcoin find it easier to resume sustained increases.

Stablehunter: I believe that the so-called "return of the bull market" is more of an illusion; at least the current market is still too "peaceful," and the new cycle has not been truly confirmed.

A round of increases may come from short covering, leverage liquidation, and short-term liquidity improvement, but none of these are sufficient to prove that a bull market has arrived. A true bull market should see more sustained spot funds, broader market diffusion, and synchronous improvement in fundamentals such as on-chain users, stablecoin supply, and protocol revenues.

Before these signals emerge, I will interpret the current trend as a rebound and repricing, rather than the formal start of a new bull market.

Joe Zhou: I have always felt that the power of the four-year cycle should not be underestimated, and I also believe that the behavioral patterns of on-chain players have continuity. If we confirm October 6 (when BTC was priced at $126,000) as the peak of the last cycle, then symmetrically, the bottom window is likely to fall between the end of this year and the beginning of next year.

2. Nowadays, the cryptocurrency market is increasingly tied to the external macro environment; interest rate changes, U.S. stock market fluctuations, and overseas regulatory policies can directly disturb the market. In your view, what constraints do external variables like macro and regulatory factors impose on this round of "bull return"? Is there a possibility that a macro environment reversal could directly interrupt this round of activity? If it really happens, what adjustments would you make to respond?

IOSG Ventures Mario: Macro-wise, the most unique aspect of this round of rebound is that: it has risen without the premise of interest rate cuts.

At the meetings on September 15 and 16, the market estimated the probability of a 25bp rate hike at over 60%, while the probability for a rate cut was zero. The probability of “no rate cuts for the entire year of 2026” on Kalshi has already increased to 40%. The main expectation on Wall Street is to hold steady for the entire year.

So, this rise is not due to liquidity but to positions—shorts being squeezed, along with a few industry-level catalysts. This determines its ceiling isn't high and also suggests it's weaker than it appears.

The possibility of a macro reversal interrupting the activity undoubtedly exists, with a specific trigger path: inflation data exceeding expectations → rate hikes come into effect → U.S. stocks retract → Crypto’s beta amplifies. As of today, Crypto's correlation with the Nasdaq sits there; it cannot be regarded as an independent market.

Our response isn’t to guess the macro, but to pre-establish the “resilience” of our portfolio—specifically how to stratify it, as detailed in question 4.

On the regulatory layer, my view may differ from that of many others: Compliance is not a hurdle in this round; it’s a ticket, but at the cost that this industry can no longer be so degenerate (referring to speculative, chaotic, high-risk behaviors).

The CLARITY Act is stuck in the Senate; on July 22, over 600 pages of text were merged, and Thune (the Senate Majority Leader and key operator of the CLARITY Act) admitted there aren't enough votes, making September a realistic window. The SEC proposed Regulation Crypto Assets on August 18, which is the heaviest digital asset rule-making in this session. Once these come into effect, the benefits are direct: brokerage houses, pensions, and public companies finally get a compliant path. The downsides are also direct: the freedom of product design will be significantly narrowed.

The impact on entrepreneurs is tangible. Previously, an anonymous team could run a Fair Launch within three months; now, if your design involves “profits,” “shares,” or “buybacks,” you have to first figure out under the CLARITY Act framework whether it counts as a Digital Commodity or an Investment Contract; those doing tokenized stocks also face SEC’s market structure rules head-on. The space for innovation is shifting from "free experiments at the protocol layer" to "doing efficiency optimization within the compliance framework."

Therefore, when we now evaluate projects, we ask one more question: Does this design still hold if placed in next year's regulatory framework? Many yield products that perform well today have uncertain answers to that question.

Fire Research Institute: Macro and regulation are mainly constraining the mid-term market rhythm this round, but do not change the long-term direction. The total scale of U.S. Treasuries has breached $40 trillion, with a high proportion of short-dated securities, rendering government finances highly sensitive to interest rates; diplomatically, consensus is close that the CLARITY Act will be difficult to pass this year; by late August, the Fed's hawkish sentiments combined with Middle Eastern tensions pushed oil prices up, cooling the activity after surpassing $80, and the interest rate game put downward pressure on cryptocurrency prices during short-term technical corrections, with the core currently still being the absorption of buybacks during pullbacks.

A macro reversal could indeed directly interrupt this round of rhythm, especially if hawkish policy signals such as those from Waller remain strong, compounded by uncertain geopolitical conflicts and the rise of local protectionism. If aggressive hawkish interest rate policies emerge, it will cool the market short-term and search for liquidity at lower levels; however, short-term disruptions only alter the slope and cannot reverse the long-term underlying trend of crypto assets. If such risks materialize, the response strategy is to compress high-risk leverage while anchoring observation points on spot resilience and long-term capital accumulation, firmly executing plans to gradually buy low during deep corrections.

BlockSec: The macro environment can indeed break the market. Today, Crypto is tightly linked to global liquidity, interest rates, and traditional financial markets, so I won’t underestimate the risks that a macro reversal brings.

However, I want to share a very direct feeling we have recently encountered.

This year, BlockSec was invited by Hong Kong to participate in the Virtual Asset Technical Exchange (VATE 2026) held in San Antonio, USA. It was a closed-door exchange with the presence of international law enforcement agencies like Europol, the UK’s NCA, Germany’s BKA, Japan’s NPA, and participants from the digital asset industry such as JPMorganChase, Fidelity, FINRA, Coinbase, Binance, OKX, Kraken, and Circle.

For us, the most interesting aspect wasn’t a particular regulatory policy but that these participants, who were previously in different systems, are now sitting at the same table to discuss digital assets.

This strengthens our conviction in one judgment: Regulation and compliance are gradually transforming from external constraints on Crypto to the fundamental infrastructure of this market. The SEC has continued to advance the regulatory framework for digital assets this year, including the proposed Regulation Crypto Assets in August; Hong Kong's regulatory regime for stablecoin issuers has also entered the practical implementation phase. These systems will indeed increase compliance costs somewhat, but on the other hand, they are also lowering the uncertainties that institutions face when entering this market.

So, I think an important change is: for institutions, the most fearsome thing is not necessarily regulatory strictness, but rather not knowing what the rules are.

If a macro reversal occurs, of course, the prices could adjust sharply, but BlockSec won’t change our long-term direction for that reason. Because one deep impression from VATE is that regardless of how the next market performs, law enforcement agencies, regulatory agencies, financial institutions, and Crypto businesses have begun building long-term capabilities for digital assets. This process won’t stop just because BTC falls 20%.

Zeuspace Yao Kun: In the current market environment, our adjustments mainly occur at the trading model and risk control levels, rather than based on subjective judgments to bet on a specific coin or narrative. As an AI quantitative strategy development team, we study macro, fund flows, and market structures, but these studies mainly help us to understand the market—what truly determines trading direction, position, and asset selection is still the model itself.

The biggest characteristics of the current market are increased volatility, intensified asset differentiation, and significantly accelerated sector rotation. This creates a favorable environment for quantitative strategies. Our focus is not to predict whether the next round will be BTC, ETH, or some new narrative, but to enable AI models to continuously identify changes in price trends, volatility, transaction volumes, liquidity, funding behaviors, and correlations between different assets. We increase risk exposure when opportunities arise and automatically reduce risks when market structures deteriorate.

JamesX: I believe the core bottom warehouse should still be built around gold and Bitcoin. Nowadays, centralized exchanges and on-chain perp DEXs like Hyperliquid have also connected many commodities and U.S. stock trading targets. Therefore, under the same trading account, there are many options available to quickly adjust.

Stablehunter: We now pay more attention to the structure of our positions rather than trying to hit every rotation perfectly. I would divide the funds into three parts: core bottom warehouse, maneuverable funds, and cash or stablecoins. The core bottom warehouse is responsible for long-term participation, maneuverable funds are used to capture phase opportunities, while cash retains the right to respond to corrections and unexpected events. It’s not essential to always earn the most; rather, after a wrong judgment, we should still be capable of continued participation.

Joe Zhou: More than 90% still invests in BTC and ETH.

3. From your perspective, what are the biggest variables and potential risks in the market moving forward? What cognitive traps are industry peers and market participants likely to fall into during this round of activity?

IOSG Ventures Mario: The variables, in the order I’m concerned about:

1. Interest rates may rise instead of fall. This is the only variable that can single-handedly interrupt all narratives.
2. The CLARITY Act may face another failure in the September window, leaving compliant funds in limbo; “tickets” being delayed.
3. The reflexivity of DAT/public companies holding tokens. When they buy, they represent net buying interests, but once share prices trade at a discount to NAV (net asset value), they become net sellers, and their holding sizes are now large enough to influence the pricing of individual tokens.
4. The race for fees among Perp DEXs continues. This is currently the largest pool of revenue in the industry, and it is compressing itself.

Cognitive traps, in the order we've encountered:

Considering buybacks as dividends. As mentioned earlier, buying, burning, and returning are three different things. Be clear about where the tokens ultimately go.

Annualizing single-day or monthly data. Ethena’s fees are recorded based on distribution events on DefiLlama; in most cases, they amount to less than $100 a day, with some days reaching three to four million dollars. Depending on which 30-day window you take, the annualized result can vary by tenfold. Our approach is to assess TTM (total fee revenue generated over the past 12 months) values and multiply the last three complete months by 4, making sure to clarify the metric on the page. The same logic applies: any conclusions of "someone occupies X%," if derived from just one day's data, are usually incorrect.

Assuming a panel displaying 0 equates to "no income". This constitutes three different issues. ether.fi's Holders Revenue (token holder income) still showed 0 after buyback was implemented, because the adapter only tracked a sub-protocol; Aave showed 0 every day since June 25 because the adapter tracked the old treasury address, and it could not see the new buyback contract—after scanning 30 days and 180,000 AAVE transfers, we couldn't find the DAO address, so we could only write "unable to verify" instead of "none"; however, Morpho’s 0 genuinely is zero, as the protocol was designed to leave no income for itself. Three identical zeros denote entirely different characteristics.

Only examining the Vesting schedule to estimate selling pressure. Morpho's circulating supply has risen 25% over the past six months, yet contract unlocking can only explain 40% of that; the rest stems from governance and discretionary fund allocations. Jupiter's unlocking calendars are genuinely empty, yet 56% of the supply is sitting in three multisig funds with no timelines. Those focusing solely on the calendar miss the bigger picture.

Defaulting to "this round is the same as the last round". Effective strategies from the last round—buying the highest beta, following the newest narratives—may not hold in a market where rates are compressed, regulations tighten, and incremental funds must traverse compliant pathways.

The last and also the easiest to fall into this round: using survivor bias during rebounds as a measure of skill. A sizable number of assets have risen by 40% to 100% off the bottom; however, the correlation between their price increases and fundamentals is actually quite low. Don’t confuse beta for alpha.

(Beta refers to the returns driven by the overall market trend, while alpha refers to excess returns obtained through individual research ability that are independent of broader market movements.)

Fire Research Institute: From the current perspective, the most significant variables the market faces are uncertainties in industry policies stemming from the political restructuring after the U.S. midterm elections. As Trump’s term enters its latter half, the balance of power in Congress could tighten, revealing the "lame duck" effect of the presidency.

Potential risks include continued suppression of global liquidity due to high interest rate environments, layered atop a U.S. stock market hovering at high valuation bubbles; if traditional markets are affected by liquidity tightening or earnings disappointments calling for mean reversion in valuations, severe corrections could spill over through liquidity and risk aversion channels, resulting in systemic pressure on crypto assets.

In the face of complex cyclical transitions, investors often easily fall into two cognitive traps: First, “carving boats to seek swords,” mechanically applying past cycle’s halving rhythms or rotation rules, while disregarding the foundational transformation brought about by ETF approvals, stablecoin legislative pushes, DAT corporate layouts, and RWA explosions that have fundamentally reshaped the underlying capital structure and investor demographics; secondly, liquidity mismatches; during extreme sentiment phases, too early to exhaust chips, and upon minor rebounds borrowing early to max out leverage could lead to a secondary bottom testing when market conditions deteriorate or external black swans hit, ultimately losing the initiative to smooth costs and accumulate at lower levels.

BlockSec: I think a significant risk moving forward is that the speed of asset and business growth may far exceed the pace of risk infrastructure development.

This issue becomes particularly evident during a bull market. When asset prices rise and TVL increases rapidly, a vulnerability that once only resulted in $1 million losses may suddenly turn into an attack opportunity valued at over $100 million; a previously small-scale compliance issue could also amplify drastically with the influx of payment and institutional funds.

At the same time, the industry rapidly faces new risk types. For example, once AI agents start participating in on-chain transactions, who has the authority to authorize a transaction? Once an agent is manipulated by Prompt Injection (the top security risk in AI agents) or otherwise, who holds responsibility? How do we limit the assets they can transfer? Some security assumptions from the era of traditional wallets may need to be reconsidered.

Therefore, I think there are two cognitive traps that could easily catch individuals in this round.

One is: the market has risen, so risk has decreased. In reality, it is often the opposite: the more expensive assets become, the greater the incentive for attackers.

The second is: regulatory friendliness renders compliance unimportant. A clearer regulatory environment means that more institutions can enter; however, once institutions join, the requirements for AML, KYT, sanction screenings, funding sources, and risk management will only become more specific.

Thus, in this round of the market, I am most focused not on how high BTC can rise, but rather: when tens of trillions of dollars, or even more, of value truly flows onto the chain, do we have security, compliance, and risk infrastructure that matches the scale of these assets? This may be the key to determining whether Crypto can truly transition from a bull market into long-term financial infrastructure.

Zeuspace Yao Kun: From the perspective of our quantitative institution, we are most concerned about whether the current market environment can be sustained. The crypto market is now highly financialized and increasingly influenced by global liquidity, institutional funds, and regulatory systems; thus, the biggest risk actually stems from sudden state shifts in the market.

From a macro perspective, the most significant external risk remains liquidity reversal.  This current round of activity has occurred against a backdrop where U.S. long-term interest rates are still relatively high and inflation as well as geopolitical risks have not completely disappeared, so the foundation isn’t particularly loose. If inflation rises again, and the Federal Reserve tightens policy once more, combined with strengthening U.S. dollar and real interest rates while U.S. stock market risk appetite decreases, this could cause ETF funds to shift from continuous inflow to outflow.

From the market itself, I believe the greatest risk is the speed of price increases outpacing the expansion of fundamentals and real liquidity. In a new round of activity, funds tend to concentrate on a small number of strong assets and hot narratives; thus, it’s easy to produce a wealth effect, which leads to rapid increases in leverage, chasing funds, and new narratives. If prices rise rapidly but stablecoins, spot transactions, real users, and long-term investors do not expand simultaneously, then the market appears increasingly heated on the surface while becoming structurally weaker.

As a result, I believe three cognitive traps are most likely to emerge in this round of activity.

The first trap is confusing beta with alpha.  During a bull market or strong rebound phase, most assets may increase in value, which can easily lead investors to mistakenly believe that their research or coin selection abilities are very strong. However, true alpha should be the ability to obtain relatively stable risk-adjusted returns across different market conditions, rather than relying purely on the overall market's rise.

The second trap is equating price rises with fundamental improvements.  Especially in the case of new narrative assets, price rises may conversely generate attention, trading volumes, and stories, creating powerful reflexivity. However, prices can lead fundamentals by a significant margin. We are more concerned about whether user engagement, revenues, liquidity, and token value captures can eventually keep pace with prices rather than assuming long-term value based on a multiple-fold price increase.

The third and perhaps most dangerous trap is mechanically replicating the experiences of previous bull markets.  Many are still accustomed to deploying their capital according to set scripts, such as "BTC rises then ETH rises, and after ETH, it’s altcoins," or believing that older assets that performed well in the last round must see corrections this time. However, it’s evident this time that funds are re-selecting assets, and narratives—both new and old, fundamentals, and institutional fund access—will alter relative asset performance between them. Every market cycle shares similarities but will never fully replicate.

This is why we rely more on AI quantitative systems. Human weaknesses often lead to stories being constructed after rises, which reinforce existing judgments; the value of a model lies in its ability to continuously re-read data and permit the market to signal when previous rules have become obsolete.  For us, the real task at hand is not merely managing setbacks but verifying whether the model can timely identify structural changes in trends, volatility, liquidity, and correlations.

JamesX: I believe the biggest risks still lie in macro and regulatory aspects, as the current uncertainty surrounding Trump's administration and the larger fiscal and monetary macro backdrop are in a very awkward phase, leading to the potential for considerable volatility or black swan events. It’s crucial to remain vigilant and avoid using excessive leverage to bet on one-sided markets. The most common cognitive trap during this round of activity is assuming that there will be an altcoin season as in previous bull market cycles; indeed, the last cycle's altcoin season was quite subdued, with most movements expressed through on-chain meme tokens. At this stage, the likelihood of all altcoin projects enjoying a season without any supporting narrative is decreasing. Active funds will choose more interesting new projects or meme tokens on chain for trading. And as the infrastructure for on-chain trading continues to improve, users no longer need to go to centralized exchanges to trade altcoins, as engaging with native tokens and meme coins across various chains has become quite convenient.

Stablehunter: The biggest variable ahead is whether the market can transition from being liquidity-driven to a joint propulsion from funds, fundamentals, and real use. The easiest mistake for market participants to make is to consider price increases as confirmations of a bull market, to perceive new narratives as new value, and to focus only on when to buy without considering when to exit. My attitude is relatively simple: it is okay to maintain a constructive view of the market, but we should not abandon risk management just because of the phrase "return of the bull market." A truly healthy bull market should gradually resonate among prices, funds, users, products, and macro environments.

Joe Zhou: In terms of risk, the most significant external variable remains the subsequent direction of Trump’s government and U.S. policies; internally, the greatest pitfall is viewing new narratives and assets as the ultimate direction while loosening the grip on the industry's true foundations and core assets—the latter are the ballast for successfully traversing cycles.