Could BTC drop back to $10,000?

Upon waking up, BTC was still vaguely fluctuating around 67k.

A bearish article on Bitcoin[1] has been quite alarming these past two days, saying that if oil prices rise to $150, Bitcoin might fall back to $10,000.

Let's do the math first.

What is the concept of $10,000? It means that from the historical high of $126,000 in 2025 to $10,000, that's a 92% drop.

A 92% drop has only happened once in Bitcoin's history, in 2011.

Let's look at what happened in a normal four-year cycle. In 2014, Bitcoin fell from $1,100 to $170, a drop of 89%. In 2018, it fell from $19,000 to $3,200, a drop of 84%. In 2022, it fell from $69,000 to $15,500, a drop of 77%. The rate of decline is narrowing. From 89% to 84%, and then to 77%. The market is growing, institutions are entering, and spot ETFs are providing stable buying pressure. In 2014, Bitcoin's market capitalization was only $10 billion; today it's in the trillions. A $10 billion market falling by 90% is not the same as a trillion-dollar market falling by 90%. Even during the perfect storm of the 2022 collapses involving Three Arrows, Luna, and FTX, BTC didn't fall below $15,000 to return to $10,000. Is it possible that with the fundamentals now vastly different, BTC will fall back to $10,000 just because of a rise in oil prices? The article said that $10,000 is a tail risk, requiring a long-term closure of the Strait of Hormuz, oil prices reaching $150 to $200 and maintaining that level for a year, the Fed not intervening, and ETFs experiencing large-scale redemptions. Oil prices reaching $150 to $200 might be possible, but can that be sustained for a year? How weak would the dollar have to be? High oil prices are a catalyst for economic recession. If oil prices really reach that level, the global economy won't be able to withstand it within six months. Demand collapses, and oil prices fall. Furthermore, regarding the Federal Reserve's failure to intervene in the market, what did the Fed do during the March 2020 pandemic, which triggered four circuit breakers in the US stock market? Unlimited quantitative easing, driving interest rates directly to zero. What did the Fed do during the 2023 banking crisis? Unleashing emergency liquidity tools. The Fed's responsibility is to rescue the market, especially when oil price shocks trigger economic recessions; it has no other choice. As for the large-scale redemptions of ETFs, there are currently 11 spot ETFs holding over 1 million Bitcoins. These are all structured long-term funds. BlackRock and Fidelity, the world's largest asset management companies, spent over a year and incurred countless compliance costs to launch their ETFs, only to collectively liquidate them six months later? This assumption is no longer macro analysis; it's a fantasy. Therefore, what's needed for $10,000 isn't a single bad news item, but the collapse and regression of the entire market structure. It's not absolutely impossible, but the probability is extremely low, approaching infinitesimal. Mathematically, infinitesimal is impossible. Another core logic of that article is that rising oil prices lead to tighter liquidity and a drop in Bitcoin prices. This logic is correct in the short term; 2022 is a prime example. But the article stops there, without further exploration. What is the next question? What will happen after oil prices remain at $150 to $200 for six months? A global economic recession, collapsing corporate profits, soaring unemployment, and exploding US Treasury bond interest rates. With $35 trillion in national debt and a 5% interest rate, the annual interest would be $1.75 trillion, exceeding military spending. By then, will the Federal Reserve have any choice? It will have to shift its focus from fighting inflation to protecting the economy, stopping interest rate hikes and restarting the printing press. The complete logical chain would be like this: rising oil prices are a short-term negative due to tightening liquidity; they are also a medium-term negative due to economic recession; but in the long term, they are a positive because fiat currency depreciates, highlighting Bitcoin's scarcity. The original text only sees the first layer; focusing only on the third layer is also one-sided. However, you must survive the two dark phases before dawn to reach the third phase of sunrise. Therefore, for short-term traders, the risk warnings in the original text are worth careful consideration. But for long-term investors, these short-term fluctuations are just bumps on the road; don't let them interfere with your direction. If you've used leverage, be careful; short-term risks are real, and you could be wiped out overnight by a black swan event. If you can't tolerate a drawdown of more than 50%, Bitcoin might not be for you. But if you're someone who invests monthly and plans to hold for ten years, these short-term bearish opinions are just noise. That article may not have been intended to scare you; it provided some useful data and a risk framework. Its problem was that it treated extremely low-probability tail risks as a scenario worth taking seriously (even emphasizing it in the title), and it only extrapolated the first layer of bearish logic without further analysis. As investors, we're not trying to predict the future, but rather to assign probabilities to different possibilities and then make decisions based on our own time scale and risk tolerance. My strategy is simple: stick to the eight-character mantra—ignore the short term and believe in cycles. Bitcoin was never designed for performance over a week, a month, or even a year. It's designed so that when your fiat currency becomes worthless, you can still stand tall. Oil at $150? Then let the storm rage on.