Introduction
Liquidity. The unseen and often misunderstood force that powers financial markets.
At a high level it’s the ease with which assets, from tech stocks to government bonds to barrels of Brent crude, can be bought or sold without sending their price into a tailspin; the lubricant that keeps the machinery of markets humming. It’s generally measurable by the cash coursing through economies, the daily churn of trading volume, or the narrow slivers between bid and ask prices (spreads) in financial markets.
For two decades in markets a fairly simplistic view of liquidity has guided investors:
“More liquidity means markets go up.”
Central banks might slash interest rates or governments unleash stimulus and money floods in. Asset prices soar as risk appears to melt away in the tide. It’s an appealing story and one that fuelled historic rallies like the post-2008 recovery or the pandemic-era boom of 2020-2021.
But this is, in my view at least, a half-truth. A glossy oversimplification that masks a messier reality. Liquidity isn’t a single lever pulled by policymakers in Washington, London, Tokyo or Frankfurt. It’s a living, breathing entity, shaped by a constellation of forces beyond fiscal budgets and monetary press releases: the unpredictable swings of market sentiment, the private sector’s credit engine, the relentless push and pull of global capital, the silent hand of regulation, the chaos of exogenous shocks, and the fragile scaffolding of technological systems.
How liquidity expands or contracts doesn’t just tweak asset valuations, it redraws the boundaries of risk across equities, fixed income, commodities, and cryptocurrencies. So as risk managers we should understand its ebbs and flows.
2025 has the potential to “throw a wrench” into the liquidity works, testing the very fabric of two decades of recency bias: I would put to you that the purpose of expanding liquidity matters just as much as its presence. The world is barrelling toward a monumental debt refinancing cycle where trillions in low-rate debt (corporate bonds issued at 2% in the 2010s, mortgages locked in at sub 2%, government notes from a zero-rate era etc.) must roll over into a, presently, 4-6% rate environment.
Take a company like Verizon, with $150 billion in debt: what once cost $3 billion annually to service could balloon to $9 billion. If central banks pump fresh liquidity into the system when debt cost remains high, the majority of it wont fuel expansion like we’ve seen in the past; no new factories, hiring sprees, speculative bull runs or tech breakthroughs, instead that liquidity will vanish into the black hole of refinancing old obligations at higher cost. In this scenario, markets could stagnate, risks could fester, and the old equation of “liquidity up, markets up” could crumble.
And this, my friends, is why a strong USD ($) with higher rates for longer matters to POTUS and why his early moves seem geared towards contraction, even recession, to force the hand of the Fed to cut, weaken USD and hopefully in time for the refinancing cycle to start.
This article is a deep dive into the anatomy of liquidity: how it works, what drives it, how it shapes risk across asset classes, and why the debt refinancing wave could rewrite the rules of the masses by the end of 2025. We’ll peel back the layers of fiscal and monetary policy, explore the hidden forces at play, and project how this all collides in the year ahead. The goal? To challenge the lazy assumption that more cash always means more gains and to spotlight the critical variable I never see anyone talk about when it comes to liquidity and how it affects markets: where that cash actually goes!
What Is Market Liquidity?
Liquidity is the heartbeat of markets, the frictionless flow that lets you trade an asset without upending its price. When it expands, more is available to drive purchasing and when it contracts less is available, impacting on supply and demand dynamics.
Picture a crowded farmers’ market: stalls brim with apples, buyers haggle, trades happen fast, and prices stay steady at $2 a pound. Now imagine it empty, only one seller with two apples and two buyers. The seller is willing to part with one apple for $1, but his last apple he wants $5. The first sale then swings the price from $1 to $5 if the second buyer is willing to accept that, or creates a wide bid-ask spread if they’re not.
That’s liquidity in a nutshell.
In financial terms, it’s the ability to buy or sell anything, like a share of Tesla, a 30-year Treasury bond, a futures contract on wheat, swiftly and at a stable value. High liquidity shows up in tight bid-ask spreads (Apple’s $200 stock might have a $199.95 bid and $200.05 ask), massive trading volume (the S&P 500’s $400 billion daily average), and deep order books (hundreds of traders queued at every price).
Low liquidity? Think wide spreads (a penny stock’s $0.90 bid vs. $1.10 ask), thin volume (a few hundred shares), and prices that lurch like a ghost town swap meet (or a Florida flea market in July!).
This isn’t just an abstract concept, it’s the bedrock of why and how markets work. Liquidity is why the $3 trillion U.S. Treasury market is the world’s safe harbour: you can dump $1 billion in bonds at 9 a.m. and barely ripple the yield. It’s why a microcap stock with $500,000 in daily trades can gap 20% on a single order. It governs confidence: can I get out when the fire alarm sounds? It anchors pricing: is this $50 share worth $50, or just what the last desperate seller paid? It’s the buffer against collapse: can markets handle a $10 billion sell-off without breaking?
In March 2020, even Treasuries seized up and spreads widened from 0.05% to 0.5% as the COVID panic hit, until the Fed flooded $1.5 trillion in repo cash to restore order. This is an example of liquidity being used for control.
Assets live on a liquidity spectrum. Equities split sharply: mega-caps like Microsoft ($10 billion daily volume) trade like silk, while small caps ($1 million days) stumble in dry spells. Think of the Russell 2000’s 2022 volatility spikes. Bonds vary too: short-term Treasuries ($500 billion daily) flow like water, long-dated corporates (spreads of 4-6%) can clog: high-yield bonds lost 15% in 2022 as buyers vanished. Commodities diverge: oil’s $100 billion daily market less problematic than copper’s $10 billion, while niche futures like lean hogs ($50 million) crawl.
Crypto, quite frankly, is a circus. Bitcoin’s $40 billion daily volume masks shallow depth with 10%-30% or more drops absolutely routine (May 2021’s 30% plunge for example). We can debate whether this is a feature rather than a bug (and certainly from a trading perspective I would argue the former), but volatile there’s no argument. Real estate? Barely liquid. Selling a $500,000 house takes 60 days, not 60 seconds.
Context though bends the shape of liquidity. For example, the 1987 Black Monday crash saw plenty of volume but no buyers. Liquidity evaporated and the Dow fell 22% in just hours. The 2021 GameStop saga flipped this scenario as retail traders drove $20 billion daily peaks in a single stock, leaving the broader market unmoved. The 2010 Flash Crash saw algo trades erase $1 trillion in minutes then rebound and liquidity flickered like a bad bulb. It’s not just cash volume, it’s resilience, trust, and the collective will to trade.
In 2008, $2 trillion in Fed reserves sat idle as banks hoarded (commercial banks distribute the liquidity central banks create through loans and other banking operations, at a high level). Liquidity on paper, paralysis in practice because of how the liquidity was being used. Understanding this sets the stage for what drives it, and why it’s never as simple as a central bank’s balance sheet or an M2 money supply chart.
My Crypto Peeve
Now, I’ll confess my incentive to write this article stems from the rising narrative in my beloved Crypto community that Bitcoin has and always will lag global liquidity (often in the form of the M2 money supply) by around 3-6 months and the belief in those who advocate this that it’s an absolute position. Something that just “is” in true “trust me (crypto) bro” fashion.
I believe this flawed for all of the reasons I’ve intimated already. Context matters. There are more variables than simply liquidity and asset prices.
Now, to be clear, I’m not saying this can’t happen, I’m simply trying to assert that the absoluteness of this position is dangerous and that as we enter a debt refinancing cycle the likes of which we’ve never seen, we must consider how any expansion in liquidity might be absorbed.
The mere possibility that liquidity expands widely and is consumed almost entirely by the refi cycle, should rates remain high into that cycle, intrigues me. It also puts me in the minority, the contrarian as far as I can tell; a position that I prefer to find myself (when justified) when it comes to all things markets.
Anyway, keep this in mind as we continue and remember this applies to all markets, not just Crypto and Bitcoin.
The Classic Drivers: Fiscal and Monetary Policy
Fiscal and monetary policies are liquidity’s heavy hitters: blunt tools that can drown markets in cash or leave them parched.
Fiscal policy (government spending and taxation) works like a firehose. In 2020, the U.S. CARES Act unleashed ~$1.9 trillion: ~$1,200 checks hit 130 million households and ~$600 billion in PPP loans propped up 5 million businesses. Cash flooded the system, household savings spiked to 33% of income as Crypto and retail equities like GameStop (up 1,500%) and AMC (up 2,000%) erupted.
Rewind to 1945-1948: post-WWII tax hikes and spending cuts (federal outlays fell 40%) drained liquidity. GDP growth slowed to 1% and the S&P 500 flatlined until the 1950s boom.
Alternatively, in 2021, Biden’s ~$1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan juiced GDP to 6.4%, but inflation hit 7%. Too much liquidity, too fast, stoked a 2022 reckoning.
Monetary policy via central banks is considered more of a precision strike (at least that’s what Central Bankers will tell you!). Lower rates or quantitative easing (QE), where central banks buy bonds or mortgage backed securities for example to inject cash, flood the system. Post-2008, the Fed’s QE swelled its balance sheet from ~$900 billion to ~$4.5 trillion by 2014, pinning the fed funds rate at 0-0.25%. Borrowing costs cratered with mortgages at 2.7% or lower and corporate bonds at ~2.5%. Markets roared: the S&P 500 tripled (1,000 to 3,000), the Nasdaq quintupled, and risk premiums essentially vanished.
Tightening reverses this impact. In 2022, the Fed hiked rates from 0.25% to 5.5% in 18 months, shrinking its balance sheet by $1 trillion. Yields soared with 10-year Treasuries up from 1.5% to 4.5% and mortgages to 7%. Markets bled: Nasdaq fell 33%, Tesla 60%, Bitcoin 75%. Volatility woke up and the VIX jumped from 15 to 35.
History is a veritable scrapbook of these types of moves. In 1991, the Fed cut rates from 8% to 3% post-Gulf War and this liquidity injection fuelled a tech rally: the Nasdaq rose 200% by 1995. The ECB’s 2015 QE (€2.6 trillion) revived Eurozone bonds: German bund yields sank to -0.2%, Italy’s borrowing costs halved. Japan’s zero-rate policy since 1999 bloated the Bank of Japan’s assets to $5 trillion (40% of GDP) yet deflation lingered, proving liquidity doesn’t always ignite growth. The U.S. in 2021 paired a fiscal flood (~$1.9 trillion) with loose rates (0.25%), sparking 7% inflation and 2021/22’s hawkish pivot (5.5% rates and a $1 trillion unwind) was the cure, but crushed growth in the markets (ARKK -70% for example).
Whether there’s policy synergy or a policy clash shapes the overall outcome as described already. I point back again at the faltered QE in 2009 where banks hoarded ~$2 trillion in reserves and lending grew just 1%, recovery slower than every economist predicted, as an example of policy clash that we can all remember in our lifetimes and where liquidity wasn’t quite so “markets go up”.
Further we can look at Fiscal austerity plus policy tightening tanking markets around 2011’s U.S. debt ceiling fight and a Fed that was tapering which triggered a 19% S&P drop.
Harmony, though, can amplify: 2020’s ~$3 trillion Fed easing plus ~$4 trillion in stimulus erased a COVID crash in short order and fuelled one of the strongest bull runs in history. The S&P rebounded 68% in nine months and was up 119% in ~18 months. But these are the marquee acts. Lesser-known players like sentiment, credit creation and global flows often provide additional variables that can rewrite the script, turning policy into a supporting role rather than the star.
The general point here: Liquidity and it’s affects on markets is a multi variant problem and one that too often, certainly in my opinion, proponents of the “liquidity is expanding so markets go up” argument willingly ignore, especially on Social Media and the world of amateur economics.
Beyond Policy: Hidden Liquidity Shapers
I’ve mentioned a few times that other variables that can impact liquidity and how markets react to it’s expansion or contraction, so let’s have a quick look at these for completeness. The fiscal and monetary policies described above grab the spotlight generally, but liquidity’s full cast is a rogue’s gallery of subtler forces:
Market Sentiment and Behaviour
Psychology can trump cash. In 2009 for example, QE injected ~$2 trillion in liquidity but ongoing fear from the GFE had paralysed markets. As described above, banks hoarded ~$2 trillion in reserves, credit spreads also hit 6% and the S&P fell 57%. Flip to 2021: GameStop soared 1,500% on Reddit’s WallStreetBets meme run, $20 billion daily volume from retail traders alone, no Fed nudge needed here, one of the rare occasions retail liquidity (and a perfect setup of short squeezes, another legitimate form of liquidity) drove movement. The 1987 Black Monday crash (Dow -22%) was another of pure panic: volume spiked and liquidity vanished.
Sentiment can turbocharge liquidity (2010s bull run, VIX at 12) or strangle it (2022 bear market, VIX 35). In 2018, a Fed hike rumour was enough to tank equities ~10%. No policy change, just nerves that one might happen. We know markets hate uncertainty and this is why central banks try so hard to set and control the narrative.
Private Sector Credit Creation
Banks and shadow banks amplify money. Pre-2008, subprime lending ballooned credit with ~$1.2 trillion in mortgages by 2007. Until it burst, slashing liquidity (bank lending fell 40%). Post-2022, tighter standards cut credit and, for example, JPMorgan’s small business loans dropped 15%, with rejection rates rising 20%.
Shadow banks (like hedge funds and private equity) pumped ~$2 trillion into markets by 2020 (IMF data) based largely on the ability to gain cheap debt, fuelling SPACs and real estate. Their 2023 retreat (lending down ~30%) tightened the “niche” markets with commercial property loans for example crashing ~40%. Another example comes from 2015, where peer-to-peer lending hit ~$50 billion: injected liquidity without a central bank fingerprint.
This particular variable is central to my 2025 tail risk, with so much debt due to mature in search of refinance at higher rates. This could be a perfect liquidity air pocket, where new liquidity added simply pays the bill for old liquidity borrowed!
Global Capital Flows
Money knows no borders in our modern, interconnected world. For example, a strong dollar in 2022-2023, up 15% vs. euro, drained emerging markets. India’s rupee hit 83, Brazil’s real 5.5 all as $500 billion fled to U.S. Treasuries. China’s 2020 ~$400 billion stimulus lifted global liquidity and copper jumped 50%, oil 70%. The 2013 Fed taper tantrum sucked ~$100 billion from Asia in months with India’s Sensex falling 15%. In 1997, the Asian Financial Crisis reversed ~$120 billion in flows and liquidity evaporated. Thailand’s baht crashed ~50%.
Why is this important in this context? Well, a 2025 dollar dip could flood markets unless tariffs choke it. If your goal is “DXY down to force rate cuts to reduce liquidity drain of refinancing at higher rates” then in that context the tariff conversation (threat or reality) makes some sense as an economic balancer. A finger on the scale so to speak. Tariffs are, despite many claiming otherwise, net negative liquidity (increased prices, or any inflation really, reduces what retail and corporations have as expendable reserves for projects or asset purchases).
Regulatory and Structural Shifts
Regulatory rule change redraws the liquidity map. Basel III post-2008 for example forced banks to hold ~$3 trillion more capital. As one might expect, lending growth slowed ~2% yearly as liquidity thinned.
Structural shifts are interesting events. High-frequency trading (~60% of U.S. equity volume) and ETFs (~$10 trillion AUM) generally juice daily flow with SPY trading ~$30 billion daily. This though cracks in crises, like in March 2020 when bond spreads tripled as ETF buyers vanished. Dodd-Frank’s Volcker Rule cut bank trading ~20% and corporate bond spreads widened 1% in 2022.
Exogenous Shocks
In my professional life chaos engineering is an enjoyable activity and that practice, or at least the chaos part, is what we’re talking about here. Russia’s 2022 Ukraine invasion for example spiked oil to $120 meaning energy liquidity tightened. Futures swung 20% and refiners hoarded. COVID’s 2020 supply chain snarl drained corporate cash as the Fed’s $3 trillion easing held defaults at 6%. The 1973 oil embargo quadrupled prices, draining stock liquidity (S&P -48%). The 2011 Japan tsunami cut auto parts and Toyota’s output fell 30%, liquidity in car stocks dried up.
A 2025 shock, say, a Taiwan Strait blockade, could spike chips 30%, choking tech liquidity. This is complete conjecture on my part by way of my chaos engineering intro, but it demonstrates the point hopefully. My main point in this article, the known reality of debt refinancing in 2025, is a far more prominent threat to our portfolios.
Technology and Operations
Systems can fail. It really is that simple (and also it really is that predictable in Crypto circles that exchange systems will fail in times of high volatility!). The 2010 Flash Crash (Dow -9% in minutes) saw algo trades erase ~$1 trillion and liquidity flickered, then returned. Crypto’s DeFi pools hit ~$100 billion in 2021 (CoinGecko), a completely parallel liquidity universe, until hacks (e.g., ~$600 million Poly Network loss) drained them. In 2023, a Fedwire glitch stalled ~$2 trillion in daily flows and markets wobbled for hours.
These are some examples of other forces acting upon liquidity which dictate how it interacts with markets and pricing. These can align with policy (2010s QE plus sentiment), defy it (2009 hoarding), or hijack it (2022’s war). They’re the wild cards that make liquidity a maze, not a straight line and why I get so perturbed when I see people taken in by said straight line theory.
Liquidity and Risk: A Two-Sided Coin
Ah, Risk. My regular readers will be surprised it took me this long to get to this part of the article!
Liquidity and risk are intertwined in markets, partners in a volatile dance of price. When liquidity floods in, risk can be considered in retreat (not completely gone mind!). Post-2008 when QE slashed borrowing costs the S&P 500 climbed ~300% (1,000 to 3,000). 10-year Treasury yields hit 0.5% in 2020 and gold steadied at $1,800. Volatility slept (VIX averaged 15) as risk premiums shrank. Corporate bond spreads fell from 6% to 2%, defaults to 1.5% (Moody’s 2021) and margin debt hit $900 billion. Cheap cash padded every fall. In 2019, Fed repo injections (~$500 billion) calmed a funding squeeze and as that risk was mitigated markets rose 30%.
Contraction flips the script though. In 2022, tight policy hiked yields and 10-year Treasuries soared to 4.5%, 30-year mortgages to 7%. Equities bled with the Nasdaq falling 33%, Tesla 60%, ARKK 70% for example. Bonds tanked, the Bloomberg Aggregate losing 13%, a 40-year low. Commodities gyrated as oil hit $120, then $70 and copper $5 to $3.50. Volatility roared (VIX 35+), defaults rose (3% by 2023) and margin calls spiked 50% (FINRA). Basically risk flared across the board. In 2018, a December rate hike triggered a 20% S&P drop. Liquidity contracted, Risk rose and fear ruled.
One must remember that assets react differently to risk. Equities (Risk on) for example chase growth so tech and small caps soar in floods of liquidity (FAANG up 500% 2010-2020) but crash in droughts (2022’s rout). Bonds (Risk Off) tie to yields so short-term notes shrug (2-year Treasuries steady at 4%) as long-dated debt plunges (30-year yields up 2%). Commodities (Risk On) ride inflation and oil and copper thrive in QE (2010s peaks at $110 and $4.50) but stutter in shocks (2022’s war).
Crypto (Risk All The Way On!) amplifies equities and risk. Bitcoin hit $69,000 in 2021’s flood and $16,000 in 2022’s drought. A volatility triple that of equities’. Real estate tends to lag: sales fell 20% in 2023 as rates bit and liquidity froze.
In general terms, expanding liquidity is good for Risk On and contracting liquidity is good for Risk Off, but as we’ve covered in detail thus far there’s no single puppet master when it comes to how markets will react to changing liquidity conditions when liquidity is considered in isolation. We must seek to understand these other variables to protect ourselves from the wrong side of market risk.
The Debt Refinancing Cycle: A Liquidity Sink
Here’s the pivot for 2025, in my view. Post-2022, rates leapt from ~0% to 4-6%. Trillions in cheap debt ($4 trillion in U.S. corporates (S&P), $7 trillion in Treasuries, $2 trillion in mortgages) start to mature soon. Annual refinancing needs hit a projected $1.5-$2 trillion through 2027. A 2015 bond at 2% rolls at ~6%, so interest triples. AT&T’s $120 billion debt, once $2 billion yearly, could hit $6 billion. Ford’s $90 billion pile faces $5 billion in new costs. Governments feel it too as U.S. interest payments rose from $300 billion (2020) to $700 billion (2023), 15% of the budget.
If liquidity expands, say via anticipated 2025 Fed easing ($1 trillion) much of that won’t spark growth as firms prioritise survival. In 2023, U.S. corporate cash flow coverage fell 20% (Fitch) and debt-heavy sectors (energy, retail) saw ratios drop below 1.5. Disney’s $50 billion debt refinance could eat $2 billion annually so no new parks for them, just bills. Defaults loom large and S&P predicts 5% by 2026 if growth stalls.
Risk doesn’t shrink here with liquidity, it simmers: zombie firms (20% of U.S. public companies, per BIS) limp along, soaking up cash to cover newly refinanced debt and the old link of “more liquidity, less risk” breaks when debt servicing trumps investment.
Households face it too. U.S. mortgage debt (~$12 trillion) from 3% rates in 2020 refinances at ~7%. Monthly payments jump 40%-60%. As a result consumer spending which is 70% of GDP could falter as people have to spend more servicing their debt, dragging retail and tech down. In 2023, credit card balances hit ~$1 trillion (Fed data), up 15% and these have continued to rise to dangerous levels ($1.21 trillion at end of 2024).
Basically, there’s a real chance that across household, corporate and government finance any liquidity expansion is only good to prop up debt refinanced, not increase demand. The correlation flips here: there’s a real chance more cash could actually mean more risk, not less, as balance sheets strain under the debt refinance burden.
And one must realise this all happens at a time where POTUS (and his newly founded DOGE) seem to be attempting to move from a government based economy with huge centralised bloat to a corporate led one which is much leaner. Why is that important? well, unemployment going up is another drain on liquidity: less income for households means less in earnings for corporates means less in tax income for government, in a really high level nutshell. Liquidity squeeze on one side while added liquidity on the other barely covers the new cost of debt.
2025 Outlook: Liquidity Meets Reality
Let’s do a quick gaming exercise: Picture a 2025 H2 where the the Fed, post-2024 slowdown (GDP 1%), cuts rates to 3-4% and restarts QE ($700 billion) as so many are projecting will be the renaissance for Risk On markets. Liquidity rises ~$1 trillion in total and debt refinancing peaks with $1.8 trillion at ~5%+. Global flows shift as China tightens (~$200 billion pullback) and the dollar dips 5%-10%.
Risk markets initially receive the news well, setting a final high for the cycle (equities and crypto in particular) before the full impacts of debt refinancing take hold (as described above) and risk on collapses.
Opportunities emerge with distressed debt as yields hit 8-10%. Energy and retail bonds tempt vultures. Value stocks (banks, industrials) gain as do cash-rich firms (like Apple, with a $200 billion hoard) who outperform. Growth slows and liquidity expansion doesn’t lift all boats as expected. Debt refinance impacts sink in and debt overall just sinks, sentiment capping gains. Equities begin to fall, yields spike, and liquidity vanishes—2008 redux.
If calm holds, markets muddle through. Flat but alive. If it doesn’t, well that’s where I get my Bitcoin purchase in the $10,000 – $30,000 range!
Conclusion
Liquidity is no monolith, as is so often sold. It’s a kaleidoscope, bent by policy but refracted by sentiment, credit, flows, shocks, and tech. Risk shifts with it, fading in floods and flaring in droughts but never fully tamed. In 2025, the debt refinancing cycle could rewrite the playbook most market participants are fixated upon as trillions of new cash might prop up balance sheets, not markets: allocation trumps volume. The old faith, more liquidity, more gains, crumbles when cash flows to creditors, not creators.
Investors then must adapt. We must adapt. Blind trust in central banks won’t cut it and nor will blindly following the mantra of the masses that more liquidity always means less risk and more gains. Trace the money’s path, where is any new liquidity actually going?
Equities and Crypto may stagnate, but value and distress offer pockets of gain. Bonds teeter and yields tempt, but defaults lurk so be careful with any duration you’re thinking about adding to your portfolio just now. In all truth, though there may be some appealing yield in the coming 2 years one must accept the rising risk of duration in a high rate refinancing cycle. I’ll come right out and say that’s not for me and this is why in my monthly reports I’ve been discussing my plans to move from duration into gold as a safety play.
Commodities hinge on shocks and in this scenario gold glitters, oil dances.
The game’s not over, not by any means; it’s just harder. In a world where liquidity’s purpose outweighs its presence, 2025 tests who sees beyond the flood to the drains beneath.
I’m still of the view we get one more impulsive high in risk on markets, but my timeline is earlier than most, looking at mid to late summer. At this point I expect to be taking very defensive position and trying to limit my downside capture. As always I never deal in absolutes, data changes on a daily basis and I will continue to track and manage accordingly.
For my Crypto friends I’m still in the $125k minimum, $134k-$157k standard distribution place for BTC in that final high, with larger blue chips like XRP in the $8-$13 range. I expect ETH to be the big underperformer (as I’ve said a few times) at $4500 – $7000 with a real chance to be flipped again by XRP. I also grow more resolute in my $10k -$30k bottom range. It’s in no way a primary expectation (this remains between $40k and $70k) for a bear market low, but I can see multiple paths to my lower range now and a systemic crash across the risk on sphere driven by a debt refinancing liquidity gap is where all of these possibilities live.
Thanks for reading, I hope this was useful. As always, “Lang may yer lum reek”.