Macroeconomics and Expectations

Recently, BTSE Chief Operating Officer Jeff Mei proposed a scenario-based forecast for the cryptocurrency market in 2026, attracting industry attention. In his framework, the future prices of Bitcoin and Ethereum are locked in several key ranges: in an environment of unchanged high interest rates and tight liquidity, Bitcoin is expected to roughly maintain around $70,000, while Ethereum may fluctuate around $2,400; once overall liquidity significantly improves, the upper price range is adjusted to Bitcoin's $92,000–$98,000 range and Ethereum around $3,600. Mei explicitly bases these expectations on two major macro variables: first, the Federal Reserve's interest rate path and overall monetary environment; second, the market's pricing of "liquidity injections," including interest rate tools, balance sheet operations, etc. He suggested that the debate over whether the Federal Reserve's reverse repo operations (RMPs) constitute "invisible QE," along with the rhythm of institutional funds entering and exiting crypto assets through ETFs and on-chain/off-chain channels, will reshape the market's valuation framework for BTC and ETH, making prices reflect macro liquidity dynamics more than relying solely on crypto-native narratives.

Interest Rates and Liquidity

Currently, the U.S. remains in a high-interest-rate environment, with the federal funds rate maintained at relatively high levels. Interest rate futures pricing shows that the probability of a significant rate cut in the short term is only about 15.5% (according to CME data), reflecting the market's pricing of a "long-term high interest rate" scenario is solidifying. In this context, risk assets from stocks to cryptocurrencies face valuation pressure due to the rise in risk-free rates: an increase in the discount rate means the present value of future cash flows (or expected network value) is discounted, and investors are more inclined to turn to fixed-income assets with higher yields and lower volatility. For BTC and ETH, high interest rates transmit through increased funding costs, reduced leverage, and decreased risk appetite, weakening marginal buying power. Meanwhile, there is significant disagreement over whether RMPs constitute "invisible QE"; some argue that these tools act as targeted blood transfusions during stress phases, implying potential liquidity return; on the other hand, some emphasize that they are more about short-term liquidity management and cannot be equated with traditional quantitative easing. Currently, there is no authoritative qualitative assessment, and this uncertainty itself becomes an important noise when the market judges liquidity direction.

Price Range Derivation

In this macro setting, Jeff Mei provided a relatively clear price scenario range. According to information from a single source, in a situation where interest rates remain high and liquidity does not show significant expansion, he believes Bitcoin's operating center is roughly around $70,000, while Ethereum fluctuates around the $2,400 level. This setting reflects a suppressive valuation balance under "high interest rates + limited risk appetite." Conversely, if the overall liquidity environment in the U.S. shows marginal easing within the next two years, and the market gradually confirms similar QE or QE-like capital injections, Mei sets Bitcoin's potential upward range at $92,000–$98,000, with Ethereum's reasonable valuation center raised to around $3,600. It is also important to emphasize that Mei himself did not provide a rigorous mathematical pricing model or parameter breakdown; these ranges are more based on macro scenario judgments, historical cycle comparisons, and expectations of institutional behavior, rather than precise predictive curves that can be back-tested, thus making it impossible to derive specific time paths or daily trends, nor can they be viewed as statistically significant quantitative model outputs.

Funding Behavior Signals

In addition to the macro narrative, funding behavior is also providing evidence for this scenario framework. According to public reports, the monthly inflow of Bitcoin whales on Binance has recently seen a significant decline, with some data even showing a halving from previous peaks, indicating that large holders are keeping more chips in cold wallets or on-chain, with trading activity noticeably dropping. In the absence of extreme price crashes, this reduction resembles a "wait-and-see lock-up" rather than panic selling, indirectly reflecting a cautious attitude towards medium-term opportunities in a high-interest-rate environment. On the other hand, the total liquidation amount across the network during the recent round of severe volatility reached $77.31 million (according to PANews data), with leveraged funds being significantly cleaned out during high volatility phases, and the risk appetite of short-term speculative positions being forcibly suppressed. Regarding the flow of funds in and out of ETFs, the market considers "whether institutional funds are continuously buying or engaging in phase-based arbitrage" as an important observation dimension. However, since some ETF daily net inflow/outflow data is still pending verification, it is currently more suitable to discuss the directional competition between traditional institutions, market makers, and crypto-native funds, rather than fixating on specific daily net inflow values to avoid being misled by noisy data.

Technology and Institutional Attitudes

On the security and technology front, the question of when quantum computing will pose a real threat to Bitcoin remains a contentious topic in the market. Mainstream assessments suggest that even if quantum computing technology continues to accelerate in the 2020s, by around 2026, its actual computing power and availability will still be significantly distant from breaking BTC's existing cryptographic defenses, and it is unlikely to form systemic security risks in the short term; even if the quantum threat approaches in the more distant future, the Bitcoin community and developers will have ample time to promote algorithm upgrades and protocol layer transformations, which to some extent lowers the risk premium of "technological extinction risk." Meanwhile, traditional financial institutions, including investment banks and asset management companies, are gradually increasing their acceptance of blockchain technology and digital assets. Several Wall Street analysts and market observers (such as Tom Lee) have emphasized that institutional investment in blockchain infrastructure and compliant asset management products is an important institutional factor supporting BTC and ETH valuations in the medium to long term. Expectations of technological security and institutional adoption jointly influence market pricing: the former reduces the "black swan" discount, while the latter provides stable allocation demand, making BTC and ETH's "risk premium" in investment portfolios no longer just a synonym for speculative bubbles, but more a reflection of a new asset class that can be hedged and modeled within macro cycles.

Scenarios and Risk Control

In constructing scenarios for 2026, it can be seen that under the paths of high interest rates and liquidity easing, BTC and ETH exhibit both differentiation and commonality: in an environment where interest rates remain high and liquidity is tightly balanced, the valuation centers of both are suppressed, but Bitcoin's narrative as "digital gold" tends to be more resilient, while Ethereum, being more reliant on venture capital and ecological expansion, may be more sensitive; once entering a phase of significant liquidity easing, an increase in risk appetite will simultaneously push up the valuation levels of both, with funds seeking new equilibrium pricing between BTC as a "reserve asset" and ETH as a "technology platform asset." It is important to note that whether RMPs are equivalent to QE and whether ETF fund inflows can continue to expand over the next two years are key assumptions that currently have significant uncertainty, lacking unified regulatory or academic definitions, and lacking cross-cycle data verification. Therefore, any market judgments based on these premises must remain flexible. For investors, a more feasible approach is to build their own scenario analysis and risk control framework around three dimensions: first, closely track changes in interest rate expectations and interest rate futures pricing; second, observe broad liquidity indicators and market leverage levels; third, pay attention to institutional behavior, including ETF product holdings direction, large on-chain fund movements, and traditional finance's allocation attitude towards blockchain assets, and preset clear response plans for positions, leverage, and liquidity management under different scenarios.

Join our community to discuss and grow 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。