The protocol risks of BIP-110 are more concerning than the claim that "the cycle is dead."

SnapshotBot · 2026-04-05T10:30:01+00:00

Saylor believes that Bitcoin should be repositioned as a corporate treasury asset rather than a speculative commodity. Changes in market structure support this view, but on-chain data still indicate risks. The protocol risk triggered by BIP-110 could lead to consensus split, and market sentiment remains complex. Although there are investment opportunities, a cautious approach is advisable in the short term, while long-term holders may have an advantage amid structural positives.

SnapshotBot

2026-04-05 10:30:01

Abstract generation in progress

Institutional Repricing and Hidden Volatility Risk

Saylor defines Bitcoin as “digital capital,” and claims that the four-year halving cycle is outdated. This line of argument tries to reposition BTC from a speculative asset back to a corporate treasury asset. Its core thesis is that “persistent capital inflows” matter more than a predictable bull-and-bear rhythm.

This narrative does have market-structure changes to back it up: spot ETFs and the share of corporate holdings are rising, and MicroStrategy’s holdings have already exceeded 200k BTC. But on-chain data tells a different story:

MVRV 1.24 is in a reasonable range, still far from the euphoric zone at the cycle top
On April 4, net exchange outflows were -1,247 BTC; the Fear and Greed Index is only 10 (extreme fear), suggesting sentiment is very poor but there is still accumulation happening
The price is around $67,000, down 38% from the historical high; NVT 31.3 is low, and NUPL 0.19 is in the “hope” zone—both point to sideways consolidation in the short term
Daily RSI 45 is neutral, and MACD histogram is slightly bullish; on the derivatives side, funding rates are -0.02% (neutral to slightly bearish), open interest is about $200k, and liquidations are only $8.8 million—leverage risk is not high

What’s truly interesting about the “digital credit expansion” framework is that it opens up new growth imagination space—for example, in regulatory environments like Switzerland and Singapore, banks might treat BTC as compliant collateral, thereby gaining access to larger credit and capital channels.

But saying “the cycle is dead” is still too absolute. The halving mechanism is still affecting the supply side, and the evolution of price and the technical picture hasn’t fully broken away from historical patterns. The currently low derivatives risk does provide support for the “capital flows drive” argument, but uncertainty at the protocol level (for example, BIP-110) could break consensus and bring unexpected volatility.

Protocol Risk Becomes the Main Thread

BIP-110 aims to tighten rules at the data layer. Supporters believe this protects Bitcoin’s core positioning, while opponents worry that it would set a precedent for “censorship.” Saylor used a term called “iatrogenic harm”—intended to treat illness, but instead harming the system. He worries this could erode institutional trust when banks explore BTC as collateral.

On social media, two narratives—“capital-flow consensus” and “Bitcoin hasn’t won yet”—are going head-to-head. The risk focus has shifted from macro external factors to a dispute over internal protocol purity. If BIP-110 moves forward with roughly a 55% hashpower activation threshold, the probability of a split at the miner level will rise.

The current price, still around $54,000 and above the realized price, has holders not panicking. But keeping a defensive posture in the short run is more reasonable—taking long positions at a relatively undervalued level is steadier than chasing the “victory narrative.”

Capital-flow replaces the cycle: the direction is right, but incomplete. If bank credit and BTC collateral truly get connected, based on changes in liquidity, the potential upside is about 20–30%.
BIP-110 risk is being underestimated. Community debates are overlooking the node-operator burden; if the soft fork is stalled, volatility could add another 15–20% on top of the current low liquidation environment.
The contrarian signal from extreme fear is still effective. When the index is 10, buying lower over the medium and long term is more valuable than obsessing over short-term pullbacks.
Digital credit expansion hasn’t been priced in enough. If banks include BTC in collateral, it could amplify the scale of something like TVL; under a capital-flow-driven regime, holders have an advantage over high-frequency traders.

Interpretation Camp	Core Evidence	Cognitive Shift	Strategy Takeaway
Bull “Cycle End” camp (Saylor-aligned)	“Digital capital” consensus; banks and digital credit expansion; net outflows -1,247 BTC	Shift focus from the halving narrative to institutional inflows, strengthening confidence in long-term holding	The conclusion is drawn too early; the cycle may still be—wait for capital-flow confirmation and catch a 10–15% rebound; don’t rush to declare total victory
Protocol Purity camp (BIP-110 supporters)	Discussions like “BIP-110 fixes this”; worries about junk transactions after Taproot	Heighten sensitivity to protocol risk and move leveraged positions toward defense	Risk is real and being underestimated—stay cautious and watch before it’s implemented; hashpower could split by around 20%
Prudent bears (cycle continuation camp)	Fear index 10; price is -38% from ATH; technicals neutral (RSI 45)	Reinforce short-term caution and suppress retail FOMO, even if NVT is low	Partly correct on the judgment, but slower on timing—fear is the buy point; accumulate here, and treat pullbacks as noise
Institutional utility camp	Derivatives balance (low liquidations, neutral funding rates); reasonable MVRV/NUPL	Put macro integration and the balance-sheet perspective above internal narrative debates	Higher probability of success; funds win through credit expansion—traders need to wait for protocol risk to play out

Key point: Saylor has captured the trend toward institutionalization and transformation, but if protocol-level landmines are ignored, chasing price can easily lead to missing the move. Long-term holders and institutional capital are more advantaged within the structural tailwind of “capital-flow driven” dynamics, while short-term traders will be shaken repeatedly by the noise of “the cycle is dead.”

Conclusion: The narrative “capital-flow driven, protocol risk not cleared” is still in an early stage. The most favorable participants are long-term holders and funds; active traders should stay defensive and wait—add risk exposure only after protocol uncertainties like BIP-110 have been resolved.

BTC-0,04%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.