Bitcoin fell fast.

It dropped from the high $67,000s to the mid-$64,000s in a matter of hours. That move triggered roughly $500 million in liquidations. Most of the forced selling hit BTC and ETH. The flush was sharp, but it was not structural. There was no exchange failure. There was no regulatory shock. There was no systemic breakdown.

There was leverage. And leverage met macro stress in a thin tape.

When markets are well sponsored, leverage can build on strength. When markets are thin, leverage amplifies weakness. That is what we saw.

Price has since stabilized near the mid-$66,000s. The broader range remains intact. But survival of the range does not mean health of the structure. The bounce tells us buyers are present. The failure to expand tells us those buyers are not large.

The deeper issue is sponsorship.

Five consecutive weeks of ETF outflows now total roughly $3.8 billion. That channel financed the last expansion phase. Without it, price can stabilize, but it rarely trends.

On-chain data shows a split tape:

Retail can absorb supply. Whales and institutions create imbalance. That imbalance is absent.

Two forces define the current environment:

Until ETF flows stabilize or large holders shift back to accumulation, rallies remain vulnerable to supply. Spikes higher are likely to meet distribution. Momentum fails because size is absent.

The Verdict

Liquidations clean up positioning. They do not create sponsorship.

Marc Lichtenfeld, one of the most trusted voices in income investing, is on the streets of South Florida showing random people something on his phone. One by one, you can see their reactions change almost instantly.

What are they looking at?

Proof of what Marc calls the biggest legal scam in America, one that affects 95% of Americans and has been running for decades.

Marc uncovered the whole thing and isn’t staying quiet about it.

Click here to see what made these people so angry.

Markets are reacting to tariffs as a volatility event, not a growth collapse.

A new 15% global tariff framework under a 150-day window has injected uncertainty into trade flows. Europe is signaling pushback. Asia is recalibrating supply chains. Headlines are loud.

But equities are not the real story.

The bond market is.

Here is the current macro setup:

The deeper issue is fiscal math.

If tariff refunds materialize and revenue declines, deficits widen. Wider deficits mean more Treasury issuance. More issuance puts pressure on the long end of the curve. Sticky real yields make speculative duration harder to fund.

Bitcoin is downstream of that chain.

Crypto trades as long-duration risk in this regime. When real yields stay firm, liquidity remains tight. When term premia rise, the ceiling compresses.

If yields stay contained and the dollar stabilizes, bitcoin can rebuild within its range. If fiscal stress steepens the curve and real yields rise, upside becomes harder to sponsor.

The Verdict

Headlines move price for hours. The yield curve defines the regime for weeks.

AI still anchors broader risk appetite.

What has changed is how it is funded.

Hyperscalers are increasingly financing capex with debt rather than free cash flow. That makes AI expansion sensitive to credit spreads and long-end yields.

If issuance is absorbed smoothly, risk stabilizes. If funding costs rise, long-duration equities reprice, and crypto follows.

AI is no longer just a growth story. It is a funding story.

When hyperscalers tap bond markets to sustain capex, the entire risk complex becomes more sensitive to credit spreads and rates. If issuance is absorbed smoothly and spreads remain tight, risk assets stabilize. If funding costs rise or investors question debt sustainability, long-duration equities reprice.

Crypto does not exist outside that ecosystem. It reacts to the same funding conditions.

Bitcoin is not strongly sponsored at the moment. In a leverage-sensitive macro environment, it trades as beta. When tech wobbles under credit pressure, crypto often feels it quickly.

This is not about AI demand fading. It is about how that demand is financed.

The Verdict

AI growth now depends on credit stability. Credit stability shapes crypto risk.

From the financial renegade who has predicted almost every major
economic event since the late ‘90s comes an urgent new warning:

An unstoppable new force is about to destroy millions of Americans financially (Goldman Sachs estimates 12,400 daily), while generating millions of dollars for others… Which side will you be on?

Click here to watch the bombshell new documentary, for free.

The structure of flows explains the range.

Retail wallets have increased balances modestly. That accumulation helps absorb supply. It slows downside momentum. It provides a cushion.

Large wallets have trimmed exposure. That trimming shows up during rallies. When price spikes, distribution appears. That caps velocity.

ETF redemptions compound the issue. Institutional demand is not stepping in with size. Without that demand, breakouts struggle to hold.

For a durable move higher, at least one of these must shift:

Until then, the range holds because supply and demand are roughly balanced. It does not break higher because sponsorship is absent.

There is one structural development worth watching.

Stablecoins could generate significant incremental demand for U.S. Treasury bills over time. Estimates suggest up to $1 trillion in potential front-end demand if adoption accelerates. That would anchor the short end of the curve and reduce funding stress at the margin.

That is not an immediate catalyst.

But if stablecoin-driven demand anchors the front end of the curve, term premia compress. When term premia compress, funding conditions ease. When funding conditions ease, crypto regains oxygen.

Stablecoin growth is a liquidity bridge between digital assets and sovereign balance sheets.

The Verdict

Short term, sponsorship is missing. Long term, infrastructure is quietly strengthening.

The $500 million liquidation cascade tells us leverage was still embedded in the system despite weeks of ETF outflows and whale trimming.

Funding rates have stabilized after the flush. Open interest is rebuilding slowly. But downside protection remains priced. Traders are not aggressively chasing upside calls. They are hedging.

When protection remains bid after a flush, the market is hedging stabilization, not positioning for expansion.

This is what stabilization looks like in a compression regime.

The Verdict

Positioning is cleaner. Confidence is cautious.

Apple, Google, Tesla… 

Sure, they’re household names now, but these companies and the other members of the original Magnificent 7 didn’t start out obvious. 

They earned their place over time.

Our analysts believe the next generation of market leaders is forming now… 

And we’ve identified the 7 companies that fit the “Magnificent” pattern.

You can see the full list for free today.

Don’t wait until everyone’s talking about them.

Get Your Free Report Today.

Step back and look at the full picture.

Nothing is breaking.

Nothing is expanding.

This is a compression regime defined by real yields.

The path forward hinges on three signals:

If real yields compress and ETF flows stabilize, expansion can resume.

If the curve steepens and redemptions persist, the ceiling holds. 

Rallies remain tactical. Breakouts fade.

Crypto does not need drama.
It needs sponsorship.

Right now, liquidity is being tested. It is not expanding.