The market is back to the battle to defend the 70,000 level, but the real danger has only just begun. The weekend's rebound looked strong, but the probability of it being a reversal is not that high.
If you observe carefully, you will find that this rebound actually only lasted one wave.
It went straight from 60,000 to 72,000, and then the market returned to a range-bound pattern, or even weakened.
Yesterday and today, the market clearly showed no signs of continuing its upward momentum, and it's even starting to falter at 70,000.
Therefore, we cannot be too optimistic about the current market situation.
Even in standard bear markets like 2018 and 2022, after extreme panic selling, the market still experiences several strong rebounds of this magnitude.
The key is not whether there will be a rebound, but how the rebound came about.
First, let's put the conclusion first: This is a rebound, not a reversal. This surge from 60,000 to 72,000 was indeed significant, but the structure was not "clean".
Rebounded by 12%+ during the day
Rebounded 17% from the low point
The sheer magnitude of the previous 14% drop being wiped out immediately makes one think: the reckoning is over, and the dust has settled.
But the problem is that the rebound did not grow from the underlying belief in the spot market.
II. The underlying reason for the decline: It wasn't just "a matter for the crypto" to begin with.
Returning to last Friday's final drop, Bitcoin collapsed from around 73,000 to a low of 62,000, with a single-day liquidation of nearly $1 billion.
Even more critically, prior to this, the open interest in futures contracts had already been proactively reduced from $61 billion to $49 billion.
In other words:
The market was dealt another blow after it had already undergone a round of deleveraging.
The trigger is not within the cryptography itself, but rather resembles a cross-asset risk aversion diffusion:
Technology stocks fell in tandem with precious metals, which experienced sharp fluctuations, with silver once plunging 18% in a single day.
The overall compression of risky assets explains why it looks like the "global search for an outlet" scenario of 312.
III. Derivatives Signals Reveal the Underlying Factor: A "Physical Rebound" Underlying a Fear Structure
If you only look at the price, you might think, "It fell terribly, but it will rise even more sharply."
However, looking at the structure of derivatives, you'll find that this is a typical extreme situation:
Funding costs are negative, volatility is inverted, and term structure is not favorable.
With a skewness of 25-delta around -13%, this is not a market where bulls are confident.
This is a market where everyone is buying insurance, but is also forced to hold positions.
In this structure, as long as the macroeconomy takes a slight breather,
A rebound is almost a physical inevitability.
IV. Why the rebound? The answer isn't in the crypto.
What truly changed the pace on February 6th was the sharp turn in the traditional market:
S&P +1.97%
Nasdaq +2.18%
Dow Jones Industrial Average +2.47%
The semiconductor index surged 5.7%.
at the same time:
Gold rebounded 3.9%
Silver rebounded 8.6%
The dollar index fell while risk appetite suddenly rebounded.
In this process, Bitcoin is more like a passive follower, a high-beta asset, rather than a dominant player.
Tech stocks stabilized, while metals rebounded.
Bitcoin was naturally dragged up as well.
V. So why did it pull so sharply? The answer lies in the fact that the violent rebound on the short side essentially illustrates one thing:
The short positions are too crowded.
Extremely bearish option skewness, crowded downside hedging, and short covering forced by macroeconomic shifts make this move more like:
Short covering + forced portfolio rebalancing + liquidity events, rather than:
The active entry of spot funds and the repricing of long-term bullish positions are why it only has "one wave" and can't be pushed up again after that.
Sixth, and most importantly: the options market simply doesn't buy it. If 70,000 were truly the "bottom," the options market wouldn't be behaving this way.
But the reality is:
The largest open interest for options expiring at the end of February remains concentrated in the 60,000-50,000 range. Traders are still heavily buying protection after the rebound, betting on a second dip.
This is not hindsight pessimism; it is forward-looking judgment based on investment.
7. Where is 70,000 now? It's a stress test, not a bulls' stronghold. 70,000 is more like a "dividing line":
Even if it can be held, or even if it is held unsurprisingly, it doesn't guarantee that security is secure. It depends on three conditions:
1) If the macro rebound continues and US stocks weaken again, Bitcoin cannot remain unaffected.
2) While the decline in open interest and the continued cooling of leverage do reduce the risk of a “vacuum-like drop,” the danger will return as soon as leverage is ramped up again.
3) To alleviate miner pressure, hash prices have fallen to near historical lows, and the expected difficulty adjustment has been lowered by 13%+. If prices can stabilize within the adjustment window, marginal selling pressure will significantly decrease.
8. Why hasn't the logic of "washing again" died out yet?
Because the reverse signal is always present:
Options are still biased towards a bearish outlook, and the derivatives structure is more like a "relief rally under fear" than a trend reversal.
ETF funds are still flowing out, and institutional investors are still reducing risk. As of February 5, Bitcoin ETFs saw a net outflow of nearly $700 million that month.
This is not a "re-entry" phase.
9. So what should we do now?
At this point, the two most common mistakes are:
Treating rebounds as reversals and fluctuations as opportunities: Historically, what really makes people lose money is often not the decline itself, but the several "reversal-like rebounds" that follow the decline.
At this point, I've just emerged from the panic, but my confidence hasn't returned.
Therefore, the more suitable strategy is:
Observe more and act less; remain cautious.
We need to wait for the market to provide a clearer direction, rather than being swayed by a single large green candle candlestick.
10. In conclusion, the rebound from 60,000 to 70,000 is real.
But its composition is more inclined towards:
Forced liquidation provides structural relief to the macroeconomy rather than a trend reversal.
70,000 is not the end point; it is merely the baseline for the next round of debate between bulls and bears.
Whether the defense can hold depends not on how excited the bulls are, but on:
Whether the macroeconomy will continue to provide support, whether leverage will spiral out of control again, and whether funds will truly return – until these questions are answered…
This rebound can only be considered a temporary recovery.
