● Bitcoin Crashes Below 100M KRW, Burry Doom Call, Nasdaq Sinks on Jobs Slump and AI Valuation Shock
Bitcoin Breaks Below KRW 100 Million + “Burry’s Death Sentence” + Nasdaq Declines in Tandem… What the Market Is Actually Pricing Is Elsewhere
This report covers three points:(1) Why the drop below KRW 100 million should be read as a liquidity-structure breakdown rather than a simple price decline
(2) Why Michael Burry’s core warnings (ETF flows, corporate holdings, collateral spirals) are viewed as systemically relevant
(3) Why Nasdaq weakened on the same day: softer employment data plus AI-driven repricing of software valuations
A final section isolates the most decision-relevant takeaways.
1) Headline: Bitcoin breaks below KRW 100 million, -8% intraday… Implications of a breached “psychological level”
For Korea-based investors, the KRW 100 million level has functioned as a key psychological threshold associated with incremental retail inflows. Once breached, selling pressure can accelerate as positioning and sentiment shift.
2) Why volatility intensified now: a three-factor combination
2-1) Weaker US employment data → growth concerns → risk assets (Bitcoin) react first
Softening employment data typically raises concerns about a slowdown. In such episodes, risk assets often face pressure early. While weaker data can also increase rate-cut expectations, the near-term effect in this regime has been dominated by risk reduction.
2-2) Leverage-driven liquidations amplify downside
Crypto markets maintain relatively high leverage. When price declines trigger forced liquidations, additional selling pressure compounds the move. If market depth is thin, liquidation cascades can produce outsized intraday swings.
2-3) Policy-premium reversal: reduced expectations for pro-crypto legislative progress under a Trump administration
Markets had partially priced in a pro-crypto policy trajectory. When timelines or feasibility appear less certain, the associated policy premium can unwind.
3) Michael Burry’s “death sentence” framing: the issue is structure, not price
3-1) Challenge to the “inflation hedge” narrative
Burry characterizes Bitcoin primarily as a speculative risk asset that tends to correlate with risk-on/risk-off dynamics rather than serving as a crisis hedge. Relative strength in gold has reinforced this framing for some investors.
3-2) “Floor demand has weakened”: legacy demand cohorts have diminished
As traceability improves and regulation tightens, certain historical sources of demand may have declined. The practical implication is reduced confidence in a durable “last-buyer” base during sharp drawdowns.
3-3) New demand (corporates, ETFs, institutions) may be structurally fragile
Burry’s key argument is that these holders may be compelled sellers due to rules, funding constraints, and redemption mechanisms.
3-3-1) Corporate holdings (e.g., MicroStrategy): balance-sheet and financing sensitivity
As prices fall, mark-to-market losses widen and funding conditions can deteriorate. Structures involving convertible debt and preferred dividends can increase cash-flow pressure over time. The USD 60,000 area was referenced as a potential zone of existential stress.
3-3-2) Bitcoin ETFs: concentration and synchronized behavior
ETFs lower access barriers, but risk-off episodes can produce simultaneous redemptions. Inflows can act as an upside engine; outflows can act as a downside accelerator. Recent outflows have been cited as evidence of this channel.
3-4) “Death spiral” via shared collateral: potential transmission to gold and silver
If leveraged products reference gold/silver while sharing collateral with Bitcoin, a decline in Bitcoin can reduce collateral value, trigger margin calls, force sales of gold/silver positions, raise margin requirements in traditional venues, and prompt further liquidations. The risk is cross-market contagion through collateral and leverage linkages.
4) Why Nasdaq weakened as well: employment plus AI-driven software repricing
4-1) Why softer employment can be more punitive for tech valuations
Weakening employment raises the probability of cost containment, with discretionary subscription spending often a target. This can intensify valuation pressure on software names already facing AI-related uncertainty, contributing to broad Nasdaq weakness.
4-2) How “AI disrupts SaaS” concerns propagate
If AI substitutes features, markets reassess pricing power and churn risk. In that environment, investors emphasize earnings quality and customer lock-in over topline growth. Software sector recoveries may therefore be slower after a valuation reset.
5) Alphabet earnings: strong results, weaker stock reaction
5-1) Results were strong; Cloud growth reached 48% YoY
Revenue and net income exceeded expectations, and Cloud growth of 48% YoY signaled that AI demand is converting into reported revenue.
5-2) Market focus: “CAPEX shock” and margin/FCF concerns
Guidance indicating USD 175B of investment by 2026 increased near-term concerns about margins and free cash flow, reflecting a market regime prioritizing cash generation over growth narratives.
5-3) Alternative interpretation: CAPEX as a signal of demand strength and capacity constraints
Management framing implies demand is sufficiently strong to require forward capacity buildout. Under this interpretation, higher CAPEX can reflect confidence rather than instability.
5-4) Counterpoint to broad SaaS disruption fears: Gemini integration into workflows
Alphabet indicated Cloud customers, including SaaS firms, are integrating Gemini into core workflows to enhance productivity and product experience. Stable token consumption suggested sustained usage intensity. This supports a view that AI-enabled SaaS can strengthen competitively rather than being uniformly displaced.
6) Key points frequently underemphasized
6-1) Bitcoin’s decline is fundamentally a liquidity-regime shift
Price moves are outcomes; liquidity conditions are drivers. When liquidity thins, modest catalysts can translate into large volatility.
6-2) Institutions, ETFs, and corporate treasuries may function as correlated selling triggers
The presence of institutional vehicles does not necessarily harden the floor. Rule-based risk controls, redemption mechanics, and funding constraints can increase synchronized selling during stress.
6-3) 2026 Big Tech CAPEX may indicate AI power/infrastructure bottlenecks, not only “AI bubble” risk
CAPEX guidance can be interpreted as evidence that AI demand is already creating constraints. The relevant lens extends beyond software to semiconductors, data centers, and power infrastructure, suggesting a potential shift in cycle leadership toward AI infrastructure.
6-4) Employment softening pressures the weakest pricing-power SaaS first
During downturns, markets reassess “cancelable” spend. SaaS with limited differentiation and weaker pricing power is typically repriced first, creating divergent outcomes within the broader Nasdaq drawdown.
7) Forward monitoring list (observational, not investment advice)
Bitcoin: ETF flow trends (net inflows/outflows) and stabilization in derivatives liquidation activity
Corporate holders: refinancing/dividend obligations and funding developments for leveraged treasury strategies (e.g., MicroStrategy)
Macro: further weakening in US employment/consumption and the Federal Reserve’s reaction function
AI: whether Big Tech CAPEX reflects demand certainty or overinvestment (validated via Cloud revenue growth)
Equities: extent of valuation-reset contagion within Nasdaq, particularly across software
< Summary >
Bitcoin’s break below KRW 100 million reflects liquidity thinning with leverage-driven liquidations amplifying downside.
Michael Burry argues the primary vulnerability is structural: ETFs, corporate holdings, and shared-collateral mechanisms can create correlated selling under stress.
Nasdaq weakness was more closely linked to softer employment signals interacting with AI-driven software valuation repricing.
Alphabet delivered strong results and 48% YoY Cloud growth, but CAPEX guidance raised near-term margin/FCF concerns; alternatively, it may signal demand exceeding supply.
[Related]
- Bitcoin volatility regime notes using ETF flow data: https://NextGenInsight.net?s=bitcoin
- AI infrastructure beneficiaries checklist during Nasdaq corrections: https://NextGenInsight.net?s=nasdaq
*Source: [ 내일은 투자왕 – 김단테 ]
– 비트코인 1억 붕괴. 마이클 버리의 비트코인 사형선고.
● Bitcoin Crashes to 68K Jobs Crack AI Capex Panic
Bitcoin Drops to $68K + US Labor Market Warning Signs + Big Tech AI Capex Fatigue… Fear Was Priced In Ahead of the New York Close
This report consolidates three points:1) The underlying trigger behind Bitcoin breaking below 69.5K and sliding to 68K (a credit issue, not merely price action).2) The directional recession risk implied by simultaneous deterioration in Initial Jobless Claims and JOLTS openings.3) Why Google’s ~KRW 240 trillion-scale AI capex can function as a defensive moat while also becoming a margin risk (the specific investor concerns).
1) Into the New York close: not a “correction,” but fear of a “cost shock”
All four major US equity indices moved lower (Nasdaq, S&P 500, Dow, Russell).
The market focus shifted from “earnings disappointment” to “forward cost escalation,” indicating a potential regime change.
- Google (Alphabet): fell ~7% early, then pared losses (dip-buying emerged)
- Amazon: down ~5% ahead of earnings (“AI spending will likely rise here as well” sentiment)
- Microsoft: weakened alongside Bitcoin and broader risk assets
- Qualcomm: down ~8% on guidance shock (smartphone demand slowdown)
Key driver: not near-term profit weakness, but rising risk that depreciation plus data center/power/cooling costs will flow through and pressure reported results with a lag.
2) Core macro: Initial Claims above expectations + JOLTS plunges = a typical late-cycle mix
Today’s data cooled risk sentiment because it combined:
-
fewer hires (openings down)
-
rising layoff signals (claims up)
-
Weekly Initial Jobless Claims: expected 212k vs actual 231k
-
Sharp week-over-week increase: ~22k
-
JOLTS job openings: expected 7.20m vs actual 6.54m
Primary question: whether the labor market transitions from “low layoffs, low hiring” to “rising layoffs and even weaker hiring,” which would represent a meaningful inflection.
Complication: the mix increases the scope for a stagflationary interpretation (sticky inflation alongside weakening labor), constraining Fed flexibility and potentially increasing risk-asset volatility beyond what rate-cut expectations alone can offset.
3) Google’s ~KRW 240 trillion AI investment: “moat” vs “margin compression”
The central issue was the magnitude of AI capex (chips, data centers), not the quarter’s headline metrics. At this scale, accounting and cash-flow implications become material.
3-1) Two investor concerns
(1) Depreciation burdenAI hardware and data center assets begin impacting the income statement via depreciation over time. Even with strong revenue, depreciation can compress margins.
(2) “Zero-click” risk to the core search advertising modelIf AI provides answers directly, users may click fewer links and view fewer ads, creating a structural concern that stronger AI experiences could erode search monetization.
3-2) Counterpoints supporting Google’s strategic position
(1) TPU (in-house chips) as a cost advantageFirms reliant on purchasing Nvidia GPUs face structurally rising compute costs. Google’s TPU strategy aims to reduce unit cost of inference/training. In an AI price-competition scenario, unit economics may be decisive.
(2) YouTube data + Android distribution as durable advantagesYouTube Shorts-scale engagement data is difficult to replicate. Android’s multi-billion-device ecosystem can become the default distribution layer for AI assistants, a strategic asset beyond near-term cloud growth.
Context: Google Cloud revenue growth was described as strong (48% referenced), with meaningful operating margin improvement. Nonetheless, the market prioritized perceived cost aftershocks over growth.
4) Qualcomm guidance shock: smartphone cycle remains distinct within semiconductors
Qualcomm’s selloff was driven primarily by weaker smartphone-related guidance rather than AI data-center strength.
Market implication: investors are increasingly separating “data-center AI” from “mobile/PC demand,” rather than treating semiconductors as a single uniform trade.
5) Bitcoin breaks 69.5K, drops to 68K: why this move is better framed as “credit” than “price”
Bitcoin fell through 70K and 69.5K, reaching the 68K level intraday.
Risk framing shifted to: “If leverage and capital access tighten, which entities face funding pressure first?”
5-1) MicroStrategy (MSTR) “margin call” fear: structure check
A widely circulated narrative suggested forced selling via margin calls. Key structural point: much of MSTR’s financing is via convertible notes, which differs from exchange-style leveraged positions.
- A significant portion of financing is in convertible note form
- Not structurally subject to immediate liquidation mechanics typical of margin positions
- Some maturities extend to 2028–2030s, limiting near-term repayment cliffs
Residual risk: not “bankruptcy,” but premium compression and reduced ability to raise incremental capital. MSTR has traded at a premium to its Bitcoin holdings; in down markets that premium can compress rapidly. Further Bitcoin declines can raise the difficulty and cost of additional fundraising, which is the core market concern.
5-2) Why Michael Burry’s comments were resurfaced
Burry signaled that deeper Bitcoin declines could amplify mark-to-market losses and capital-raising constraints. Given his prior influence on sentiment, the remarks contributed to volatility.
6) (Supplementary) GLP-1 anti-obesity drugs are reshaping consumption and industry structure
GLP-1 therapies are increasingly affecting consumer behavior beyond healthcare.
- Reduced appetite: shift from “volume” consumption toward “nutrient density/high-protein” consumption
- Lean-mass loss concerns: rising protein demand (foodservice and product mix adjustments)
- Softer snack demand: some packaged-food categories reacting via pricing and strategy changes
In the US, adoption has entered a broad commercialization phase. Wider availability of oral formulations could accelerate penetration, with potential medium-term linkages to consumer inflation dynamics via food and restaurant pricing behavior.
7) The most important point: markets are repricing “capital cost and structural cost,” not “earnings”
The dominant factor was not quarterly earnings, but capital cost and structural cost bases. These costs are less cyclical and more likely to pressure reported profitability over a 1–3 year horizon through accounting channels.
- AI capex is shifting from “growth investment” to “unit-cost warfare”-> Competitive outcomes may increasingly depend on compute unit cost (chips, power, cooling, data centers)
- Bitcoin’s downside is increasingly tied to “credit channel tightening,” not only spot price-> If capital-raising narratives weaken (e.g., MSTR-style vehicles), crypto sentiment can deteriorate rapidly
- Labor data does not confirm recession, but it signals an early-stage directional shift-> Claims up + openings down is a historically unfavorable combination
- A transition from “technology deflation” to “technology inflation”-> Instead of cheaper performance over time, AI is increasing the unit cost of IT investment
Near-term market pricing may increasingly link five variables as a single complex: rate cuts, inflation, US growth, recession risk, and AI investment intensity.
< Summary >
Bitcoin fell through 69.5K toward 68K, with downside framed more as credit/funding anxiety than routine price correction.
US Initial Jobless Claims exceeded expectations while JOLTS openings fell sharply, indicating simultaneous weakening in hiring demand and rising layoff signals.
Google’s ~KRW 240 trillion AI capex can strengthen competitive defenses via cost structure and distribution, but investors prioritized depreciation-driven margin compression and business-model cannibalization risk.
Qualcomm’s decline reflected a smartphone-cycle guidance shock rather than AI-driven semiconductor strength.
Markets appear increasingly sensitive to cost structure (capital cost plus AI infrastructure costs) and the need to demonstrate ROI, more than to headline earnings beats.
[Related…]
- https://NextGenInsight.net?s=Bitcoin
- https://NextGenInsight.net?s=CAPEX
*Source: [ Maeil Business Newspaper ]
– 비트코인 69.5K도 붕괴ㅣ신규실업수당 예측치 상회ㅣ퀄컴 낮은 가이던스, 주가급락ㅣ홍키자의 매일뉴욕● Fed Liquidity Fades, Bond Shock, Mega Cap Melt Up
Why Accepting “U.S. Stocks Are Broken” at Face Value May Be Costly: Forces Larger Than “Wash Fear” Are Driving the Market
This report covers:
1) Why attributing the sharp decline in gold and silver to a single individual is likely overstated.
2) How markets behave as the Fed-centric liquidity regime weakens, including divergences between short- and long-term rates.
3) A cost-efficient equity-support scenario ahead of the 2026 midterms: Treasury-led measures, deregulation, and mega-cap concentration.
4) A practical framework for separating “news” from “price levels (technical baselines)” in Bitcoin, Tesla, and thematic equities.
5) A consolidated set of the most decision-relevant points that are often underemphasized elsewhere.
1) Market recap as a narrative: “Wash as catalyst,” not “Wash as cause”
[Headlines] Gold and silver sell off; U.S. equities weaken; markets cite “Wash fear.”
[Surface interpretation] Kevin Wash discussed as a potential Fed Chair candidate/leading figure -> tightening concerns -> risk assets decline.
[Core rebuttal] With the 10-year Treasury yield not surging beyond a clearly explanatory range, assigning broad volatility to a single person may be disproportionate.
The central claim is that downside risk was already embedded, and Wash functioned as a convenient justification (a trigger) rather than the primary driver.
2) Key concept: what happens when an “artificial buyer” exits
If Treasury supply expands materially while natural demand is insufficient, equilibrium typically requires lower bond prices (higher yields).
In recent years, this adjustment mechanism was muted because the Federal Reserve, via quantitative easing (QE), operated as a policy-driven, large-scale buyer, supporting Treasury prices for an extended period.
The underlying risk is less about a specific individual and more about the fading of the regime in which the Fed broadly backstopped liquidity.
3) Scenario: “short rates down + long rates up” and why the market can move in two directions
The post-issue rate dynamics are framed as follows:
1) Short-term rates (policy expectations): downward pressure
A political preference for policy-rate cuts can shift front-end expectations toward easing.
2) Long-term rates (Treasury supply/demand, confidence, reduced artificial support): upward pressure
If the Fed reduces policy-driven purchases, marginal demand may weaken, pressuring prices and lifting long-end yields.
This mix signals a market increasingly governed by Treasury market plumbing and policy architecture rather than purely by growth expectations.
4) Hypothesis: “strategic equity support” led by the Treasury rather than the Fed
The framework assumes that broad-based QE-style liquidity expansion is difficult to sustain in an inflation-constrained environment.
The proposed alternative is:
Treasury-led tools + deregulation + channeling private capital flows.
The key mechanism is to reduce constraints while implicitly steering large pools of capital (notably bank and institutional balance sheets) toward targeted destinations, limiting inflationary spillovers and supporting indices via concentration in high-quality mega-cap equities.
This implies a market characterized by index resilience driven by a narrow set of mega-caps, increasing the relevance of S&P 500 and Nasdaq index exposures and raising security-selection difficulty.
5) Political timing (midterms) and market linkage: supporting equities while managing inflation
Two concurrent objectives are emphasized:
Objective A: support equity indices
Ahead of elections, headline asset prices and “scoreboard” indicators such as major indices can become politically salient.
Objective B: contain inflation perceptions
A sustained surge in gold can be interpreted as stress in currency credibility and inflation expectations, creating adverse political optics.
Accordingly, the preference is framed as a controlled adjustment in the dollar that supports competitiveness without undermining reserve-currency confidence.
In this context, the dollar, gold, Treasury market stability, inflation expectations, and equity indices can become tightly coupled, increasing cross-asset sensitivity to policy signals and interventions.
6) Reframing the gold and silver decline: supportive backdrop versus policy constraints
The report acknowledges that gold had supportive conditions, including central-bank accumulation and prior dollar softness.
However, the interpretation prioritizes the possibility that participants paused or de-risked in anticipation of a dollar rebound and/or policy response, rather than attributing the move solely to isolated selling by specific actors.
Gold is treated not merely as a commodity but as an indicator that intersects with dollar credibility, inflation expectations, and U.S. financial primacy, which can raise incentives for policy containment ahead of elections.
7) Crypto, thematic equities, and Tesla: manage by “baseline levels,” not headlines
The operational rule is: markets trade within ranges; a decisive break of the range defines trend confirmation.
Bitcoin: the 78,000 level is treated as a key downside boundary (per cited framework).
Ethereum: a break below 2,800 increases risk of downside extension toward the 2,000s (per cited framework).
The decision value is the method: define downside baselines in advance; act on violations; treat headline flow as noise while levels hold.
Thematic equities (BMNR referenced):
Public endorsements and celebrity-style signal amplification can function as late-cycle attention markers, increasing volatility risk in traffic-driven trades.
Tesla:
The stated view remains that the short-term setup is unfavorable due to an ongoing pattern, with priority placed on structural price breaks over narrative appeal.
8) Conclusion: reassign the focus of risk
Key takeaways:
– Wash is more likely a narrative catalyst than a primary cause.
– The principal variable is a potential shift in Treasury market support as Fed-driven, indiscriminate liquidity provision weakens.
– A transition toward Treasury-centered, targeted support (index defense via mega-cap concentration) is presented as a plausible policy path.
– With simultaneous objectives of equity support and inflation management, policy incentives to influence the interaction of gold, the dollar, yields, and indices may rise.
9) Priority points often underemphasized in mainstream coverage
1) “Wash fear” is largely storytelling; the core variable is a change in Treasury supply-demand mechanics
The dominant driver is more plausibly structural: reduced policy buying and a shift in the Treasury market’s marginal bid.
2) A market where indices hold up while breadth and sentiment weaken can be politically functional
Broad stimulus can reignite inflation; supporting index-heavy mega-caps can improve headline performance with less generalized demand impact, increasing concentration risk for investors.
3) Gold is not only an asset; it is a policy-sensitive signal
Rapid appreciation can intensify inflation and confidence narratives, raising the probability of policy attention and stabilization efforts.
4) If easing expectations coexist with rising long-end yields, the key risk is valuation repricing
Long-duration equities, including growth and mega-cap technology, remain sensitive to discount-rate volatility even under index-supportive policy incentives.
5) Risk control in crypto and thematic trades requires pre-defined baselines rather than headline filtering
Range lows function as explicit sell/rebalance triggers, reducing behavioral drift during high-volume narrative cycles.
< Summary >
Attributing declines in gold, silver, and equities to a single individual is likely overstated; the more material variable is structural change, including diminished Fed-style backstopping of Treasury demand.
Short-term rates may reflect easing expectations, while long-term rates can rise on supply-demand and confidence concerns, creating a divergent curve regime.
Ahead of the 2026 midterms, a policy mix that targets index support while managing inflation is framed as plausible, potentially via Treasury-led measures, deregulation, and capital concentration into mega-cap equities.
For Bitcoin, thematic equities, and Tesla, execution discipline is framed around technical baselines (range floors) rather than headline interpretation.
[Related articles…]
How rate shifts affect equities and real estate: key items to monitor now
Signals of re-accelerating inflation: how to read commodities, the dollar, and bond markets
*Source: [ 미국주식은 훌륭하다-미국주식대장 ]
– 미국주식 망했다? 지금 쫄면 바보입니다
