When I woke up, BTC was still shaking at 67k.

In the past two days, a bearish article on Bitcoin [1] was quite scary, saying that if the price of oil rose to US$150, Bitcoin might fall back to US$10,000.

Let's settle the score first.

What is the concept of $10,000? This means that it has dropped from the historical high of $126,000 in 2025 to $10,000, which is a 92% drop.

The 92% drop has only occurred once in the history of Bitcoin, which was in 2011.

Let's look at what happens in a normal four-year cycle. In 2014, Bitcoin fell from $1,100 to $170, a drop of 89%. In 2018, it dropped from US$19,000 to US$3,200, a drop of 84%. In 2022, it dropped from US$69,000 to US$15,500, a 77% drop.

The decline is narrowing. From 89% to 84% to 77%. The market is getting bigger, institutions are entering the market, and spot ETFs are providing stable buying orders. In 2014, the market value of Bitcoin was only US$10 billion, and today it is in the trillions. A 10 billion market fell by 90% and a trillion market fell by 90% are not the same thing.

Even in the perfect storm of serial thunderstorms of Sanjian, Luna, and FTX in 2022, the decline of BTC did not fall below 15k and return to 10,000 knives. Is it possible that today, when the fundamentals are no longer the same as before, BTC will fall back to US$10,000 just because of a rise in oil prices?

The article said that $10,000 is a tail risk, requiring the Strait of Hormuz to be closed for a long time, oil prices hitting $150 to $200 and staying there for a year, the Federal Reserve still not bailing out the market, and there are large-scale redemptions of ETFs.

Gas prices of $150 to $200 may be possible, but can this be sustained for a year? How weak is the dollar? High oil prices themselves are a catalyst for economic recession. If oil prices reach that level, the global economy will be unable to sustain it within half a year. Once demand collapses, oil prices will fall.

Besides, the Fed will not rescue the market. In March 2020, the epidemic hit the U.S. stock market and caused circuit breakers four times. What did the Federal Reserve do? Unlimited quantitative easing, interest rates directly hit zero. What will the Fed do in the banking crisis in 2023? Emergency liquidity tools are smashed out. The Fed's job is to rescue the market, especially when an oil price shock triggers an economic recession. It has no second choice.

As for the large-scale redemption of ETFs, 11 spot ETFs now hold more than 1 million Bitcoins. These are all structural long-term funds. BlackRock and Fidelity, the world's largest asset management companies, spent more than a year and spent countless compliance costs to launch ETFs, and then liquidated them collectively six months later? This hypothesis is no longer macro analysis, it is final fantasy.

So what $10,000 requires is not bad news, but the collapse and regression of the entire market structure. It's not absolutely impossible, but the probability is extremely low and tends to be infinitesimal. From mathematical principles, infinitesimal is impossible.

Another core logic of that article is that rising oil prices lead to tighter liquidity and the decline of Bitcoin. This logic is correct in the short term, and 2022 is a living example. But the article stopped here and did not continue to ask further questions.

Go on and ask what is it? What will happen when oil prices remain at $150 to $200 for half a year? The global economy is in recession, corporate profits are collapsing, unemployment is soaring, and interest rates on U.S. Treasury bonds are exploding. The national debt is 35 trillion, with an interest rate of 5%. The annual interest is 1.75 trillion, which exceeds military expenditure. By that time, does the Fed still have a choice? It can only shift from fighting inflation to protecting the economy, stop raising interest rates, and restart the money printing press.

The complete logical chain should be like this: rising oil prices are bad in the short term because liquidity tightens; it is still bad in the medium term because of the economic recession; but it is good in the long term because the depreciation of the legal currency highlights the scarcity of Bitcoin. The original article only looked at the first level. If you only look at the third level, it would be one-sided. But you have to survive the two pre-dawn stages of darkness before you can wait until the third stage of dawn in the east and the sun rising.

So for short-term traders, the risk warning in the original article may be worth reading carefully. But for long-term investors, these short-term fluctuations are just bumps in the road. Don't let it interfere with your direction.

If you increase leverage, please be careful. Short-term risks are real. Be careful of black swans that may cause you to lose money overnight. If you can't bear a drawdown of more than 50%, then Bitcoin may not be for you. But if you are someone who invests regularly every month and plans to hold it for ten years, these short-term bearish calls can only be noise.

That article may not have been intended to be scaremongering, but it provided some useful data and risk framework. Its problem is that it regards the extremely low probability of tail risk as a scenario worthy of being taken seriously (even emphasized as a title), and only deduces the first layer of negative logic without continuing to deduce it.

As investors, we are not trying to predict the future, but assign probabilities to different possibilities and then make decisions based on our own time scale and risk tolerance.

My countermeasure is very simple, continue the eight-character formula, don't look at the short term, and believe in the cycle.

Bitcoin was never designed for performance over a week, a month, or even a year. It is so that when the legal currency in your hand turns into waste paper, you can still stand up straight without kneeling down.

Gas is $150? Then let the storm come more violently.