On February 12, 2026, Eastern Eight Time, Standard Chartered Bank simultaneously downgraded the target prices for Bitcoin (BTC) and Ethereum (ETH) for the end of 2026 in the same report, striking a heavy blow on an already highly tense market sentiment. Standard Chartered lowered the Bitcoin target price from $150,000 to $100,000, and halved the Ethereum target price from $7,500 to $4,000, a significant adjustment that quickly triggered a shockwave among institutional and retail circles. Concurrently, the Bitcoin ETF holdings have decreased by nearly 100,000 coins from their peak, with incremental off-exchange funds retreating and high-position buyers on the exchange generally trapped; the fear and greed index has plunged to 5, an area of extreme panic. Against this backdrop, a major bank chose to collectively "cool down"; is this a calm correction to the bubble burst, or another round of negative resonance magnified by extreme emotions?

A One-Third Cut in Target Prices: Standard Chartered’s Calculations and Passivity

● The magnitude of the downgrade itself constitutes a narrative turning point: from $150,000 to $100,000, from $7,500 to $4,000, Standard Chartered's adjustment of BTC and ETH target prices indicates a reassessment of the risk-reward ratio for the next two years. While no complete deduction path is provided, the current climate of tightening liquidity expectations, significant retreat of ETF funds, and ongoing regulatory uncertainties encourages sell-side institutions to lower overly aggressive projections as a form of self-preservation aligned with macro and market realities.

● The decline in Bitcoin ETF holdings by nearly 100,000 coins from their peak is a clear signal to the market: previously regarded as the "long-term bull engine," the ETF channel is now performing the opposite function. Meanwhile, Standard Chartered points out that holders with an average buy price of around $90,000 are generally in a floating loss, putting pressure on both high-entry institutional and retail investors, who are firmly locked in the loss zone, with turnover and new capital willingness both declining simultaneously. Under such capital structure conditions, the previously high target prices issued to attract attention naturally appear difficult to reconcile.

● For Standard Chartered itself, this significant downgrade also represents a shift in verbal focus—from the previous narrative of “high growth, bullish orientation” to “risk management, defensive posture.” The target price is no longer just an optimistic vision for future prices but is packaged as a “risk warning” and “risk control service” for clients; sell-side reports are reoriented towards stability in their narratives, attempting to maintain a professional image and credibility during volatility cycles.

● The unresolved question is whether this downgrade is an active correction by Standard Chartered based on independent judgment or a retrospective rationalization following a deep price adjustment and cooling of sentiment? When the market transitions from euphoria to extreme fear, lowering the target price from $150,000 to $100,000 seems more like adding a logical framework to the downward trend than delivering a truly contrarian forward-looking perspective at a critical juncture.

ETF Bloodletting and Floating Losses: The Bull Market Engine is Stalling

● If we compare this round of market actions to an engine, then ETFs and on-chain spot are the dual driving forces. Currently, the holdings of Bitcoin ETFs have decreased by nearly 100,000 coins from their peak, signifying that some funds previously seen as “long-term steadfast” are now choosing to withdraw amidst price volatility and uncertain prospects. Meanwhile, the on-chain holding structure is also tightening, with circulating chips decreasing without translating into effective upward momentum, aggravating liquidity fragility.

● In high price regions, Standard Chartered provides an estimate: overall Bitcoin holders with an average buy price of around $90,000 are in a state of floating loss. This means that a large amount of capital is trapped on paper, with daily fluctuations exacerbated into psychological pressure, leading to a drastic drop in trading activity. Those trapped are unwilling to take losses, and potential bottom-fishers hesitate, creating a scenario of "everyone is dissatisfied, yet feels powerless to change."

● The fear and greed index dropping to 5 has approached the threshold of extreme emotions. The once prevalent “FOMO-inspired chase” has been swiftly replaced by “full defense,” where any negative news is amplified as validation, and any positive news is interpreted as selling pressure. When the emotional needle points toward fear, target prices, candlestick charts, and on-chain data all seem to be uniformly shaded with a gray filter, and the market is more willing to believe bad news than rebound signals.

● Under the dual pressures of capital withdrawal and emotional coldness, institutions like Standard Chartered, which once provided high target prices, now face the challenge of maintaining strong bullish narratives like “$150,000, $7,500”; the cost is not just the risk of erroneous predictions but a complete misalignment with client emotions and holding realities. Therefore, the expectation downgrade serves as a “synchronization calibration” for the market and a subtle correction of its past optimistic narratives.

From Narrative Bubble to Application Landing: A New Fulcrum to Sustain Belief

● Beyond the clamor of price expectations, Vitalik Buterin's statement feels like a bucket of cold water: “Most energy should be spent on developing truly useful blockchain applications, rather than relying on narrative engineering and speculative bubbles to gain users.” While institutions like Standard Chartered are busy rewriting target price curves, the Ethereum founder is more concerned with whether there are enough people willing to pay for real needs on-chain, rather than betting on a “$150,000 narrative.”

● The numbers provided by traditional financial institutions like Standard Chartered are often based on macroeconomic liquidity, policy environment, and capital preferences; they look at variations in asset weight within global asset allocation portfolios. In contrast, the emphasis of founders of public chains like Ethereum is on the long-term value creation of applications, protocols, and ecosystems—for instance, whether they can support large-scale users and form stable fees and cash flows. When these two frameworks are juxtaposed, price targets and application construction appear more like parallel lines.

● When price narratives break down, and targets of $150,000 and $7,500 are forced to downgrade, will the market phase shift from “telling a new story while seizing coins” to “focusing on applications and cash flows”? In extreme fear, emotion-driven hot spots are hard to sustain, while projects with clear business models, real income, and user engagement are more likely to become safe havens. Funding begins to question: if the next cycle does not see a tenfold valuation, can the project still survive?

● This also raises an open question: in such an extreme zone where the fear index has dropped to 5, are truly useful applications more likely to gain pricing power and attention? When speculative expectations are significantly weakened, the market may briefly revert to a more primitive selection mechanism—who can create sustained cash flow on-chain, who deserves a higher valuation, rather than who can devise a steeper price curve.

Institutional Split: Cutting Expectations While Increasing Spot Holdings

● In stark contrast to Standard Chartered’s downward adjustment of target prices, Phong Le, CEO of Strategy, sent a signal in another direction at the same time—“The company will begin to shift from equity financing to preferred stock financing to raise funds to increase/purchase Bitcoin (BTC).” While sell-side analysts are busy revising downward the 2026 endpoint, some businesses are making more complex capital structure adjustments at the board level to free up ammunition for spot purchases.

● Behind this is a typical difference in roles between sell-side and buy-side: sell-side analysts can downgrade target prices and adjust models to maintain research credibility; whereas buy-side institutions—whether corporate treasuries or professional funds—must vote with real capital within a specific price range. Thus, a seemingly contradictory scenario emerges: report titles become more cautious, while actual capital chooses to enter the market against the trend amidst extreme fear, producing different cyclical perspectives within Wall Street.

● Why do some choose to increase holdings against the trend during times of panic and tight positions? Their considerations often transcend short-term profit and loss: first, from the perspective of long-term asset allocation, viewing BTC as digital gold or a macro hedging tool; second, due to strategic planning against inflation and fiat currency credit risks; third, to gain branding, voice, and pricing influence in the crypto asset field. To them, extreme fear feels more like the most cost-effective moment for negotiation rather than a signal to flee.

● For ordinary investors, when facing opposing institutional signals, the more important issue is not “what Standard Chartered said,” but “who is speaking, and who is really taking action.” Sell-side reports provide stories and frameworks, while buy-side actions represent bets and responsibilities. Instead of fixating on a single report title, it is better to simultaneously track: which institutions are reducing ETF holdings, and which companies are using preferred stock financing to increase spot holdings, as these reflect the real attitudes captured on the balance sheets.

Bottom Panic or Trend Reversal: The Market Swings Between Two Narratives

● Bringing together several key phenomena of the moment—the extreme fear in the fear and greed index, overall floating losses for those with an average buy price of $90,000, Standard Chartered's downward revision of target prices, and Bitcoin ETF holdings retreating by nearly 100,000 coins—naturally, the market divides into two mainstream interpretations: one believes this is a cyclical deep correction within a bull market, and extreme emotions are brewing for the next round of medium to long-term uptrend; the other worries that this could be the precursor to a major cyclical trend reversal, and the bull market myth built over the past two years is collapsing.

● An emotional skepticism circulates on social media: “Banks always cut expectations at the bottom and raise expectations at the top; it’s a form of liquidity psychological manipulation.” Such statements currently remain at the level of opinion, lacking systematic evidence to support them and can only be seen as instinctive rebounds under loss and anger emotions. However, their communicative power lies in investors’ tendency to attribute their losses to larger, more invisible forces.

● During a phase interwoven with extreme losses and distrust, narratives resembling "conspiracy theories" easily gain the upper hand. They project dissatisfaction with traditional finance and investment bank discourse power: when prices rise, institutions are seen as complicit in the drive; when prices fall and target prices are downgraded, they are accused of adding insult to injury. The reality is often more mundane than conspiracies, but at emotional boiling points, simplistic and brutal explanations are always more popular.

● To escape the mire of emotions, investors need a cooler framework: to look at price, valuation targets, on-chain data, and application progress simultaneously. Prices provide the immediate consensus of the market; target prices reflect the medium to long-term assumptions of institutions; on-chain data reveals capital flows and holding structures; application progress determines whether a narrative can convert into sustainable cash flow. Only by placing these four dimensions on the same table for comparison can single indicators avoid hijacking your decision-making.

When Target Prices Fail: Where Will the Pricing Power in the Next Cycle Reside

In this round of shocks, Standard Chartered's downgrade of BTC and ETH target prices, the near 100,000 coin decrease in ETF holdings, the overall floating losses for retail investors and some institutions, and the fear index dropping to 5 weave together a clear turning point: the bull market narrative centered on high target prices is being rewritten by real data and funding behaviors. Institutions once seen as the “answer” now feel more like a piece on the chessboard of a game; they provide a perspective rather than the truth itself, and must be interpreted alongside the genuine flow of funds, on-chain activity, and the speed of application landing.

From Vitalik's emphasis on “truly useful applications” to Strategy-like enterprises using preferred stock financing to increase holdings against the trend during the panic period, the next cycle for Bitcoin and Ethereum will likely be a composite of the three-dimensional competition of “price narrative + application landing + asset allocation.” Price targets can no longer independently support a grand bull market narrative; only when scalable application scenarios emerge on-chain and are incorporated into long-term asset allocation by an increasing number of institutions will the market draft a credible upward curve.

As the market shifts from merely telling stories back to assessing efficiency, cash flows, and value creation, the true watershed for Bitcoin and Ethereum may just be beginning to reveal itself: a global asset closer to “value storage” and a settlement and computation layer closer to “application infrastructure.” In this new phase, whoever can seize pricing power can rewrite the myths in the next cycle, rather than simply being a supporting role pushed by target prices.

Join our community, let's discuss and grow stronger together!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh

OKX welfare group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance welfare 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。