2026-01-07 03:24:54

Bitcoin successfully completed a 5000-point fluctuation as scheduled on the 7th, successfully reaching the key level of 92,500. But honestly, this kind of 5% unilateral volatility is not really significant in the context of the entire market cycle.

Looking back at last month's Bitcoin trend analysis record, I realized a key way of thinking about trading strategies. Amateur traders and true strategic traders are far more different than just the market charts themselves.

Basics like candlestick charts, volume, and trading volume are indeed important, but far from enough. Macro economy, micro policies, international geopolitical developments, and commodity futures correlations—all require research and judgment skills. Yet many content creators nowadays just speak without this systematic thinking. Honestly, it's a bit frightening.

This is also why more and more people are realizing: Bitcoin is no longer just a simple currency concept. It has evolved into a global financial asset, influencing institutional investments, hedging strategies, and the entire asset allocation ecosystem.

Returning to the 2025 trading goal—how is your established plan progressing? This is a question worth serious reflection.

BTC0,54%

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.

21 Likes

Reward
21
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

PessimisticOracle

· 01-09 11:09

A 5000-point fluctuation isn't even enough to watch; this is the gap between institutional players and retail investors. That's right, those bloggers who jump on trending topics every day are really outrageous; they dare to call trades without understanding anything. The 92,500 level is indeed critical, but it still feels far away. BTC has long detached from the crypto circle; now it's a financial game, and we're the ones suffering. Whose 2025 trading goal hasn't ended in a flop... Honestly, it still depends on the macro environment; these little tricks like candlestick patterns can't cover that up. The phrase "systematic thinking"—most people probably haven't even heard of it.

View OriginalReply0

ChainMelonWatcher

· 01-09 10:29

That's right, a 5% fluctuation range doesn't really matter; big institutions can swallow it all at once. Those who post trading notes every day, do they really understand candlestick charts and dare to talk about it? Pfft. You need to understand both macro and micro aspects; this guy's thinking is clear. The 2025 target... I haven't decided yet, let's just watch and see for now. Anyone still trusting purely technical analysis should wake up now.

View OriginalReply0

BearWhisperGod

· 01-07 03:49

5% fluctuation, so what? True players focus on the macro perspective. Those creators who only shout signals are truly disgusting. It's about time to realize that BTC is just a toy for big institutions. The 2025 plan? Haven't decided yet, haha. Watching candlestick charts is not as useful as listening to Federal Reserve speeches.

View OriginalReply0

consensus_failure

· 01-07 03:44

5% volatility? I'm done, this little fluctuation isn't even enough to buy me a cup of coffee. Some big influencers really should take a macro course; spreading false signals does more harm than good. The 92,500 level doesn't seem that sacred; from a cyclical perspective, it should have broken through long ago. Those still only looking at candlestick charts should really reflect on their cognitive framework. Institutions are playing a big game, while retail investors are still looking at 5-minute charts. The gap is enormous. Target for 2025? I'm still clearing my 2024 trapped positions.

View OriginalReply0

EyeOfTheTokenStorm

· 01-07 03:34

What is a 5% fluctuation? True institutions have already been positioning themselves in macro strategies. Those who make money by looking at K-line charts should have been washed out long ago.

View OriginalReply0