The measured-move target from the $65K–$74K base has been reached. Bitcoin closed the week at $82,179, directly inside the $82K–$86K supply shelf I flagged in #16, pressing against the 34 EMA at $83,302 on a conviction-character long white candle. The breakout is executing on schedule. The 34 EMA is now the only thing standing between structural repair and the next leg.

None of this is financial advice.

Don’t trust, verify.

Let’s dive in.

TL;DR — Key Takeaways

• Weekly trend remains transitional; the base measured-move target at $83K–$84K has been reached and price is now testing the 34 EMA at $83,302, the line that converts short-term recovery into medium-term trend repair

Read more

The pattern explains Bitcoin’s design. Every decision (the fixed supply, the difficulty adjustment, the decentralized network) is a direct response to a specific failure mode in the monetary history that preceded it. Bitcoin is the culmination of a long argument about what makes sound money sound.

Subscribe now

The Easy Money Trap

Saifedean Ammous, in The Bitcoin Standard, names the structural cause of every monetary failure in history: the easy money trap.

Salability is where the argument starts. Carl Menger introduced the concept in his 1892 essay “On the Origins of Money,” and Ammous formalizes it across three dimensions: a monetary good’s ability to exchange at full value across scales, across space, and across time. The monetary goods that win early adoption are those that score well on all three. The ones that fail are those whose salability advantage collapses the moment someone finds a cheaper way to produce them.

The mechanism is straightforward. Any commodity with sufficiently high salability will be adopted as a medium of exchange. As adoption spreads, monetary demand for the good increases. Increased demand drives up the price. Higher prices make production more profitable. More producers enter the market. Supply increases. The increased supply dilutes the value held by existing owners.

The trap closes when producers can respond to monetary demand with increased supply faster than the market can absorb it. At that point, the monetary good becomes easy money: easy to produce, easy to dilute, easy to steal the savings of those who hold it. This is not a market failure. It is the predictable consequence of monetary demand meeting elastic supply. Every monetary good in history has faced this dynamic. The question is only how quickly and completely it plays out.

Shells: The First Global Money

Seashells were among the most widely used monetary goods in human history. They circulated as money across China, India, Southeast Asia, and large portions of Africa. Their monetary properties were real: they were durable, easy to count, and difficult to obtain in large quantities far from their natural habitat. Their drawback was their lack of uniformity. As Ammous observes, this made it hard to express prices in shells consistently, which limited the scope of trade they could support.

North America had its own shell-money tradition: wampum, adopted as legal tender by European settlers in 1636 and abandoned by 1661, when the inflow of British gold and silver coins offering uniformity, combined with more efficient harvesting technology, ended its monetary role. The failure mechanism was the same one that destroyed shell systems across Africa and Asia: a competing technology made the scarce thing abundant.

Wherever shells served as money, the arrival of producers capable of importing or manufacturing them in bulk destroyed the monetary system. West African coastal communities that had maintained stable shell economies for generations found their savings vaporized when European trading ships arrived loaded with shells obtained cheaply elsewhere. The monetary content of the shells had never been in the shells themselves. It had been in their relative scarcity. The moment that scarcity was violated by new supply, the shells reverted to the status of decorative objects.

The Rai Stones of Yap: A Case Study in Monetary Collapse

The Rai stones of Yap Island are the most instructive monetary case study in the historical record because the collapse is so precisely documented.

The Yapese used large limestone disks, some weighing up to four metric tons, as their primary monetary good for centuries. The stones were quarried from Palau or Guam, hundreds of miles away, and transported back to Yap by raft and canoe in a laborious process that required hundreds of people for the largest stones. The labor required to obtain a stone was the source of its monetary value. Rai stones had a high stock-to-flow ratio: the existing stock accumulated over generations was large relative to annual new production, making meaningful supply dilution nearly impossible.

The system was more sophisticated than this description suggests. Stones too large to move were transferred by social recognition alone. The village knew which family owned a particular stone, even if the stone remained physically in place. This is the property that makes Rai stones, among all historical moneys, the closest analogue to Bitcoin: ownership transfers without physical movement of the asset, recorded in the shared memory of the community.

The collapse came in 1871 when David O’Keefe, an Irish-American sea captain, was shipwrecked on Yap and saw a profit opportunity. He returned with explosives and modern tools, quarried Rai stones cheaply from Palau, and offered them to the Yapese as payment for coconuts to ship back to coconut-oil producers. The village chief banned the new stones, decreeing that only those quarried in the traditional way carried value. Others on the island disagreed. The dual standard fractured the monetary consensus, and with modern industrial capability arriving in the region, there were many O’Keefes to follow. The supply of stones could no longer defend itself against the new flow.

Salt, Cattle, and the Etymology of Failure

Before metals, two other monetary goods ran the same failure sequence. The language proves it.

Salt was used as money across Rome, Ethiopia, and large portions of the ancient world. The Latin root is sal. The word salary is what remains. Cattle served as the primary monetary good across much of prehistoric Europe and Africa. The Latin for cattle is pecus. The word pecuniary is what remains.

Both goods had real monetary properties in contexts where they were scarce and difficult to transport in bulk. Both collapsed under the same pressure: improved production technology, expanded trade routes, and a supply that could not defend itself against the incentives created by high monetary demand. The words survived. The money did not.

The African Bead Trade: Monetary Colonialism

The aggry bead story is more consequential and more tragic. Aggry beads, of contested origin (Ammous notes possible sources ranging from meteorite stones to Egyptian and Phoenician traders), served as money across large portions of West Africa for centuries. They were precious in an area where the technology to produce them was scarce, giving them the high stock-to-flow ratio required for monetary use. Trade networks, savings stores, and commercial relationships were built around them.

European traders visited West Africa in the sixteenth century and noticed the high value placed on these beads. European glassmaking technology could produce comparable beads cheaply enough to make the trade extraordinarily profitable: carry cheap glass beads to West Africa, exchange them for goods, slaves, and gold at rates reflecting the local monetary value of beads, and return with cargo worth many times the cost of the glass.

A money that is easy to produce is no money at all. It places the wealth of holders up for sale in exchange for something cheap to manufacture. Over the following centuries, the slow flood of European beads systematically destroyed the purchasing power of the existing monetary stock held by African savers. The mechanism was identical to currency debasement: new supply, created cheaply by those with superior production technology, transferring the real wealth of existing holders to the new producers. The beads came to be called “slave beads” for the role they played in financing the Atlantic slave trade. This is monetary debasement as colonial extraction.

Why Metals Displaced Artifact Money

The transition from artifact money to metal money was not a single event but a gradual process driven by the same logic. As trade routes extended and civilizations grew more complex, the spatial salability problem became acute. Shells and beads were difficult to denominate at scale and too easy to produce in bulk once trade routes opened.

Metals offered solutions to both problems. Silver and gold could be melted, divided, and recombined at any scale. A kilogram of gold could be transported across any distance in a coat pocket. Their chemistry made them indestructible. Their scarcity made them resistant to dilution.

But metals introduced a new failure mode: institutional management. The Roman denarius held 3.9 grams of silver at the time of the Republic. Nero began the debasement under his reign. By the time of Diocletian, the denarius retained only traces of silver over a bronze core. The state did not need a new production technology to dilute the money. It needed only control over the mint. Soldiers were still paid. Contracts were still denominated in denarii. The physical coins looked similar enough. What collapsed was the purchasing power held by everyone who had saved in them. The debasement transferred real wealth from creditors and savers to the state, silently, without consent, through a mechanism most of the population lacked the monetary literacy to identify.

Among metals, gold won the monetary competition for a specific geological reason: the existing above-ground stock of gold, accumulated across thousands of years of mining, is so large relative to annual new production that no price incentive can meaningfully dilute it. Ammous provides the figures in Chapter 3 of The Bitcoin Standard: annual growth in the gold stock has never exceeded 2% since 1942, and the highest single-year increase on record was 2.6% in 1940. Silver is more abundant and more responsive to price-driven mining increases. Gold is not. This property, the high stock-to-flow ratio, is why gold became the dominant monetary good in every advanced civilization that independently discovered it, from China to Rome to the Aztec empire.

What Monetary History Tells Us About Bitcoin

Every monetary good in this history failed for one of two reasons. Either technology advanced to make it cheaper to produce (shells, beads, salt, copper), or institutional structures were created to manage its scarcity and those institutions were eventually captured (the Roman mint, gold-backed paper, Bretton Woods).

Bitcoin is designed to be immune to both failure modes. Its supply cannot be increased by any technological advance because the supply schedule is mathematical, not geological. Its scarcity cannot be captured by any institution because there is no institution to capture, no executive to subpoena, no jurisdiction to seize. The rules are enforced by tens of thousands of independently operated nodes, each of which can reject a non-compliant block.

The history reviewed here is not ancient. The aggry beads were destroyed within the last five centuries. The Rai stone system collapsed within living memory of people now dead. The gold standard was abandoned in 1971, within the lifetime of people reading this. The Venezuelan bolivar lost virtually all of its purchasing power during the hyperinflation of the past decade. Monetary failure is not a historical curiosity. It is a recurring present-day reality.

Satoshi understood the distinction: “In this sense, it’s more typical of a precious metal. Instead of the supply changing to keep the value the same, the supply is predetermined and the value changes.” P2P Foundation forum, February 18, 2009.

Sources: Ammous, Saifedean. The Bitcoin Standard, Ch. 1–4. | Menger, Carl. “On the Origins of Money.” Economic Journal, vol. 2 (1892). | Szabo, Nick. “Shelling Out: The Origins of Money.” 2002. | Nakamoto, Satoshi. P2P Foundation forum post, February 18, 2009.

In this sense, it’s more typical of a precious metal. Instead of the supply changing to keep the value the same, the supply is predetermined and the value changes.
— Satoshi Nakamoto

What Is A.W. Block?

A.W. Block is a digital asset estate investigation and Bitcoin advisory firm. On the estate side, we support attorneys, probate administrators, and fiduciaries with asset identification, blockchain investigation, and court-ready documentation. On the advisory side, we work with individuals and institutions on Bitcoin custody, accumulation strategy, and education.

awblock.io

Found value? Share, subscribe, and/or send sats here: bc1qrlgzu0m94wdrsnxjg8qym7jtnudelgfypmjmaa

April closed the argument. Bitcoin printed a $76,318 monthly close above the 2024 cycle base, confirmed the corrective low, and followed it with a textbook hammer retest of the $74K polarity line on the weekly. The markdown phase is no longer the operative structural read.

The lens this issue is confirmation. Price repaired. Structure validated. The question now is whether the recovery has the participation to extend toward the $84K 200 MA test — or whether the weekly digestion becomes distribution. Hashrate is under pressure, miner margins remain marginal, and volume has not yet expanded to match the price thesis. The levels are defined. The evidence is mixed where it needs to be honest.

None of this is financial advice.

Don’t trust, verify.

Let’s dive in.

TL;DR — KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Monthly structure: Macro bull cycle intact. April closed at $76,318 — decisively above the $73K polarity line — confirming a successful retest of the 2024 cycle base and ending the active markdown classification. The corrective phase has likely registered its meaningful low. The 8 EMA at $82K is the next overhead test.

• Weekly structure: Breakout confirmed, retest held. Price wicked to $74,931 and closed at $78,559 on a textbook hammer-character candle — the polarity line defended on the close. Transitional structure is now structurally validated. The 34 EMA at $84K and $90K–$94K weekly S/R define the overhead sequence from here.

• BTC/Gold: Recovery intact, regime change unconfirmed. The ratio holds at 17 oz/BTC following the February cycle low at 12.60 — short-term momentum is bullish but the ratio remains below all major declining moving averages. Reclaim of 19.50–20.00 is the first structural test. Gold dominance persists until that zone is cleared.

• Hashrate: Early stress characterization maintained. The partial recovery off the 830 EH/s low has stalled and reversed. The current weekly print at 890 EH/s — down 11% on the week — returns hashrate to the lower end of the 2026 band and 28% below the late-2024 all-time high. Proof-of-work moat intact; mining environment has not normalized.

• Mining cost vs. price: Most significant margin improvement since the corrective phase began. Cost-to-price ratio compressed from 1.20 to 1.04 — driven by price recovery, not cost reduction. The environment remains structurally marginal. A sustained hold above $82K–$84K is the condition that converts marginal into viable.

• Market cap / rank: Bitcoin holds #11 globally at $1.578 trillion. The gap to Saudi Aramco at #10 is approximately $195 billion. Bitcoin outperformed both gold and silver on the session — the second documented instance of this behavioral pattern. The rank was earned, not inherited.

• Primary scenario: Weekly digests the retest hold and extends toward the $82K–$86K 34 EMA confluence — the rectangle measured-move target zone. Volume expansion on approach to $84K is required to validate a clean reclaim of the daily 200 MA and convert short-term repair into medium-term trend recovery. The level to watch is $84,732.

The Technicals

Monthly

OHLC Data

• Open: $68,225.88

• High: $79,498.80

• Low: $65,692.29

• Close: $76,318.70 (+11.86%)

Key Levels

• $118K–$124K: Cycle peak / distribution origin; macro overhead resistance

• $103K–$108K: Monthly S/R / broken demand turned supply; major structural overhead — the level that defined the topping structure

• ~$82,000: 8 EMA monthly; declining dynamic resistance

• ~$75,000: Upper boundary of major monthly support block; 34 EMA confluence; reclaimed polarity line

• $59,500–$73,500: Major monthly S/R block — the 2024 consolidation base, now reclaimed structural support

• ~$58,000: 50 MA monthly; rising; macro support floor

Structure

Monthly structure is in post-distribution corrective phase with a completed successful retest of the prior cycle base. Per Schabacker, the most structurally significant test in any cycle is the first retest of the prior expansion’s breakout zone — and the February–April 2026 sequence delivered exactly that. Price descended into the $59K–$73K monthly support block (the 2024 consolidation that originally launched the late-2024 / 2025 expansion), wicked the lower boundary at $65,692, and closed April back above the upper boundary at $73K–$74K. The cycle structure remains intact: no monthly close registered beneath the $58K macro line; the 50 MA monthly continues to rise; the prior base tested as support and held. The macro bull cycle is under stress but not invalidated.

Candlestick Behavior

The April 2026 monthly candle is a long-bodied bullish candle (Nison: long white candle) with proportional shadows on both ends — open $68,225, close $76,318, real body $8,092 bullish, upper shadow $3,180, lower shadow $2,533. Body comprises 59% of the total range; shadows are present on both ends but neither dominates. Per Nison, this is a strong-bodied directional candle showing buyer control of the session with both extremes tested but neither defended by the opposing side. The upper shadow signals supply was met at $79,498; the lower shadow signals demand absorbed the $65,692 probe; the body close at $76,318 — well into the upper third of the range — confirms buyers controlled the close. Not a reversal candle. Not a hammer. A continuation/expansion candle with body dominance, structurally consistent with a corrective phase producing its first conviction-character bullish month.

Structural read unchanged — close above the $73K polarity line is what matters, and that remains valid. The candle’s character is conviction expansion, not reversal indecision.

Chart Patterns

The monthly action since November 2025 reads as a distribution top followed by an A-B-C corrective sequence into the prior cycle base — a classic post-expansion correction structure per Schabacker. The $59K–$73K block has functioned as a successful retest zone, holding the deepest probe and producing a reactionary reclaim. The April monthly close establishes the first credible higher-low candidate above the prior cycle base; confirmation requires a subsequent monthly close that does not invalidate the lower shadow defense.

Trend & Momentum

• 8 EMA (~$82,000): Declining; price below; first overhead resistance on the monthly frame.

• 34 EMA (~$75,000): Flattening at the upper boundary of major support; confluence with the polarity line — most structurally important MA on this chart.

• 50 MA (~$58,000): Rising; well below price; macro trend support intact.

• Trend state: Macro bullish, medium-term corrective, short-term reclaiming — transitional macro tape consistent with mid-cycle correction rather than cycle reversal.

Volume

Monthly volume during the corrective phase has been moderate and contracting — consistent with absorption and base re-validation rather than panic distribution. The dominant high-volume monthly bars on this chart remain the late-2024 / early-2025 expansion candles. April’s reclaim volume is participatory but not climactic — the move is price-confirmed but participation-light at the macro frame.

Psychological & Probabilistic Context

The macro sentiment environment is post-distribution capitulation transitioning to disbelief recovery. Behavioral context is defined by long-cycle holders — 2024 base accumulators saw their structural support tested and held; $108K–$122K distribution participants are pressed by the corrective sequence. The macro Layer 7 backdrop (Iran transit toll, Morgan Stanley/Goldman ETF expansion, Japan FIEA legitimization, Pakistan banking access) constructs a demand environment that did not exist during prior cycle corrections — a structural difference informing probability without overriding price structure.

Monthly Outlook

• Primary: May closes above $73,500 preserving the reclaim and higher-low structure; subsequent months consolidate in the $73K–$85K zone testing the declining 8 EMA as next overhead reference. Cycle correction continues with structure intact.

• Stabilization: Monthly close above $85K reclaims the 8 EMA on the macro frame; opens the $101K–$108K monthly S/R as the first major structural overhead test. Cycle transitioning from corrective to structural recovery.

• Structural Repair: Monthly closes and holds above $108K with reclaim of the broken demand zone; full cycle correction resolved and conditions for continuation toward $122K cycle peak retest established. Macro bullish trend re-confirmed in full.

Final Assessment

The monthly trend remains macro bullish in cycle structure with the corrective phase showing a completed successful retest of the prior cycle base. April closed at $76,318 above the upper boundary of the $59K–$73K monthly support block, with meaningful lower shadow defense of the $65K probe. Cycle structure is intact and the corrective phase has likely registered its meaningful low.

What confirms continuation: a May monthly close above the 8 EMA at ~$84K — first reclaim of declining momentum on the macro frame and the trigger toward the $101K–$108K structural overhead test.

What signals a change: a May monthly close back beneath $73,000 — invalidating the April reclaim and re-opening the major support block for a deeper test, with the $58K 50 MA as the structural floor.

Prior Journal Reference

The prior monthly entry analyzed the April 2026 candle as a partial / in-progress reading — captured at OHLC O $66,993 / H $76,008 / L $64,960 / C $68,226 mid-month. At that point structure was framed as “active markdown phase” with the partial close beneath $71,000 reading as continuation, and the explicit position that “the April monthly close relative to $71,000 is the only number that matters right now.”

How the completed candle resolved the prior framework:

• The “$71,000 close test” — RESOLVED BULLISH. Final April close came in at $76,318, $5,318 above the $71,000 line and $3,318 above the $73,000 reclaim level the prior entry flagged as the bullish trigger. The prior entry’s “What Matters Most” criterion was met decisively.

• Bullish Scenario status: The prior entry’s bullish scenario required “April monthly close above $71,000 with continued strength in May” and “key level to reclaim: $73,000.” April triggered the price condition; May follow-through is now the operative continuation question.

• Bearish Scenario status: Prior bearish scenario required a monthly close below $63,500. The actual low ($65,692) wicked into but did not close beneath that band. Bearish scenario invalidated.

• Candlestick re-classification: The prior entry described the partial candle as “wide-range with upper and lower shadow — classification pending end-of-month close” and noted that “a close above $71,000 shifts toward absorption.” The completed candle shifted decisively into absorption character — the upper shadow extension to $79,498 (above the partial reading’s $76,008 high) and the close at $76,318 confirms the buyer-absorption read the prior entry left conditional.

• Structural framing update: Prior entry classified the structure as “confirmed macro markdown phase following ATH distribution.” With the completed April close above $73K reclaiming the polarity zone, the structural read upgrades from active markdown to post-correction higher-low candidate. This is a meaningful frame change driven entirely by the close — exactly as the prior entry specified.

• What carries forward: The 8 EMA at ~$82K remains the next overhead reference (prior entry flagged it at ~$83K, now ~$82K — consistent with the declining slope); the $103K–$108K distribution ceiling remains the macro overhead test; the 50 MA at ~$58K remains the structural floor. The framework is intact; only the structural classification has advanced.

The prior entry was structurally correct in its conditional framing — the close was the deciding variable, and the close moved the read from markdown-continuation to corrective-completion candidate. Structural continuity preserved.

Weekly

OHLC Data

• Open: $78,672.16

• High: $79,498.80

• Low: $74,931.00

• Close: $78,559.32 (−0.14%)

Key Levels

• $116K–$120K: Distribution origin / weekly S/R; macro overhead resistance

• $104K–$108K: Broken weekly demand turned supply; 3M/6M/12M S/R cluster; confluence with 50 MA

• $90K–$94K: Weekly S/R; first major structural overhead test

• $84,000: 34 EMA weekly; declining intermediate resistance

• $74,000–$75,000: Weekly S/R / polarity zone — successfully retested this week

• $60,000–$64,000: 3M/6M/12M S/R cluster; primary structural floor

• 8 EMA ~$75,000: Reclaimed; rising; aligned with the polarity zone — confluence support

• 34 EMA ~$83,000: Declining; first meaningful overhead resistance

• 50 MA ~$95,500: Declining; aligned with $90K–$94K supply

• 200 MA ~$61,000: Rising; macro trend support intact

Structure

Weekly structure has progressed from breakout to confirmed retest hold. The April 26 weekly close at $78,670 reclaimed the $74K polarity line; this week’s action tested the breakout — wicking down to $74,931 — and held with a body close at $78,559. Per Schabacker, a successful retest of broken resistance as new support is the structural confirmation that converts a breakout from suspect to validated. The lower-high / lower-low markdown sequence from the $122K peak is no longer in clean control; the weekly is now in transitional repair phase with the polarity hold confirmed. The next structural test is the declining 34 EMA / $84K zone overhead.

Candlestick Behavior

The current weekly candle is a textbook bullish hammer character — open $78,672, close $78,559, real body $113 bearish (essentially flat), upper shadow $826, lower shadow $3,628. Body is 2.5% of total range; lower shadow is 79% of total range. Per Nison, this is a hammer/dragonfly-adjacent reversal-continuation candle when occurring at support — and price wicked to exactly the $74,931 level (testing the $74–75K polarity zone) before closing back near the open. The candle structure communicates: supply tested the breakout, demand absorbed the test in full, and price returned to the upper range. Following a strong bullish-bodied prior week, this is a textbook continuation hammer at retest support.

Chart Patterns

The accumulation base ($65K–$74K) breakout from the prior week remains valid and is now structurally confirmed by the retest hold. Per Bulkowski, a successful retest of a broken rectangle/base boundary increases the statistical probability of measured-move completion. The base measured-move target of $83K–$84K remains the operative reference and aligns with the declining 34 EMA — the confluence overhead test. No new pattern is forming; the structure is the resolution-and-retest sequence playing out as projected.

Trend & Momentum

• 8 EMA (~$75,000): Reclaimed and rising; aligned with the polarity zone — confluence dynamic support.

• 34 EMA (~$83,000): Declining; first overhead resistance; measured-move target sits inside this zone.

• 50 MA (~$95,500): Declining; aligned with $90K–$94K supply cluster.

• 200 MA (~$61,000): Rising; macro support intact.

• Trend state: Short-term bullish (8 EMA reclaimed and supportive), medium-term bearish (34/50 declining overhead), macro bullish — transitional alignment with momentum repaired and the 34 EMA test pending.

Volume

Weekly volume bar at 68.42K is lower than the prior week’s breakout candle and lower than recent rally weeks. This is the principal technical concern with the retest hold: the structural read is bullish, but participation contracted into the digestion. Per Dow Theory, low-volume tests can be read either as absorption (bullish) or distribution-pause (bearish) depending on what follows — the next week’s volume will determine which interpretation is correct. Volume expansion on a follow-through weekly close above $80K would validate absorption; volume expansion on a failure beneath $74K would validate distribution-pause.

Psychological & Probabilistic Context

Sentiment continues the rotation from disbelief to cautious acknowledgment, with the retest hold removing the simplest “failed breakout” thesis. Behavioral context favors continuation pressure but the lower-volume digestion introduces uncertainty about participation conviction. Position holders from the rectangle breakout are now sitting on validated structure; sidelined capital faces increasing pressure as price holds above the polarity line on successive weeks. The Layer 7 macro infrastructure remains supportive without being the trigger — the trigger is whether the 34 EMA at $84K either reclaims or rejects on the next approach.

Weekly Outlook

• Primary: Acceptance above $74K continues; weekly extends from current digestion toward the $82K–$86K supply shelf and 34 EMA confluence as the first measured-move target. Hammer character favors continuation following digestion.

• Stabilization: Weekly close above $86K with volume expansion confirms transition from structural repair to recovery; opens the $90K–$94K weekly S/R as the next directional test — the level that defined the breakdown will define the next phase.

• Structural Repair: Weekly closes and holds above $94K and reclaims the $104K–$108K broken demand zone; first credible end of the markdown phase and conditions for return to bullish expansion structure on the weekly frame.

Final Assessment

The weekly trend has progressed from transitional to transitional with structural confirmation. The April 26 breakout above $74K has now been validated by a textbook hammer-character retest hold — price wicked to $74,931, defended the polarity line on the close, and held in the upper range of the week. The 34 EMA at $84K and the $90K–$94K weekly S/R define the overhead sequence that determines whether transitional repair converts into recovery. Continuation is the structurally consistent read pending volume confirmation.

What confirms continuation: a follow-through weekly close above $80K with volume expansion, opening the $82K–$86K 34 EMA test zone and validating the base-pattern measured move.

What signals a change: a weekly close back beneath $74K — would invalidate the retest hold, convert the hammer into a failed signal, and re-open the $65K–$67K base low as the immediate target with the $60K–$64K cluster as the structural downside.

Prior Journal Reference

Around the Block #16 (April 27, 2026) defined the weekly Primary scenario as “acceptance above $74K holds; weekly digests the breakout in the $74K–$80K zone over the next 1–2 weeks; price extends toward the $82K–$86K supply shelf and 34 EMA confluence.” This week has played out as the digestion phase of that exact scenario — price tested down to $74,931 (inside the $74K–$80K projected digestion zone), held the level, and closed at $78,559 (still inside the projected zone). The hammer-character retest validates the breakout structurally. The Primary scenario remains active and on track. The Stabilization and Structural Repair criteria from #16 (close above $86K and $94K respectively) remain unchanged and pending. Volume contraction during digestion is the only divergence from the ideal scenario — flagged for continued monitoring.

Bitcoin/Gold — Weekly

OHLC Data

• Open: 17.082

• High: 17.198

• Low: 16.995

• Close: 17.025 oz/BTC (+0.47%)

Reading: 1 BTC currently equals ~17 oz of gold. Chart measures Bitcoin’s purchasing power in gold terms — pure relative strength, removes USD as a variable.

Key Levels

• 40.00 oz: Cycle peak / weekly S/R; macro overhead resistance (early-2025 distribution origin)

• 25.00–26.00 oz: 34 EMA confluence; declining intermediate resistance

• 24.00–25.00 oz: 50 MA confluence; declining

• 21.50–22.50 oz: 200 MA (declining flat); first macro line of repair

• 19.50–20.00 oz: 3M/6M/12M S/R cluster; broken structural support, now decisive overhead

• 17.00 oz: Current level — at 8 EMA confluence

• 14.22 oz: Weekly S/R; reclaimed support during recovery

• 12.60 oz: Weekly S/R; cycle base low — capitulation print from February 2026

• 8 EMA ~16.50 oz: Reclaimed; rising — short-term momentum bullish

• 34 EMA ~25.50 oz: Declining; significant overhead

• 50 MA ~24.50 oz: Declining; aligned with 19.50–20.00 supply

• 200 MA ~22.00 oz: Flat-to-declining; macro trend reference

Structure

BTC/Gold structure is in early recovery phase from a completed cycle markdown. The ratio peaked at ~40 oz in early 2025 (Bitcoin’s strongest position relative to gold during the cycle), broke down through the 19.50–20.00 oz structural support in late 2025, and capitulated to 12.60 oz in February 2026 — the deepest underperformance of Bitcoin vs gold in the current cycle. Per Schabacker, the structure is best described as a completed markdown phase with active basing — the 12.60 low has been respected, the 8 EMA has been reclaimed, and price is grinding back toward the 19.50–20.00 broken support. The ratio remains below all major declining moving averages overhead — recovery is real but transitional, not yet structural.

Candlestick Behavior

The current weekly candle is a small bearish-bodied near-doji — open 17.082, close 17.025, real body 0.057 (essentially flat), upper shadow 0.116, lower shadow 0.030. Per Nison, this is a spinning-top character at a momentum extension — indecision after a multi-week recovery move. Following the steady advance from 12.60 through 17, this candle reads as a digestion pause rather than a reversal — neither side is producing conviction at the current level. Close near the open in a narrow range communicates equilibrium, not directional resolution.

Chart Patterns

The recovery from the 12.60 cycle low resembles an early-stage rounded base / disbelief recovery formation — characteristic of post-capitulation behavior per Schabacker. No completed pattern yet; the structure is still developing. The 19.50–20.00 oz zone is the operative pattern reference — a successful reclaim of that zone would convert the basing structure into a higher-low recovery sequence; rejection there would re-validate the markdown thesis. No measured-move target is offered until pattern resolution registers.

Trend & Momentum

• 8 EMA (~16.50): Reclaimed and rising; short-term momentum bullish.

• 34 EMA (~25.50): Declining steeply; first overhead resistance band.

• 50 MA (~24.50): Declining; aligned with broken support cluster — macro intermediate resistance.

• 200 MA (~22.00): Flat-to-declining; the first macro line of structural repair — reclaim required for trend transition.

• Trend state: Short-term bullish, medium-term bearish, macro bearish — a transitional ratio with momentum recovering but trend structure still favoring gold.

Volume

Volume on the recovery from 12.60 has been moderate and steady — consistent with absorption rather than aggressive accumulation. The dominant volume event remains the early-2026 capitulation bars, where panic selling produced the cycle low. Current weekly volume at 3.88K is below recent average — the ratio is grinding higher on contracting participation. Per Dow Theory, recovery rallies on declining volume tend to be vulnerable to higher-frame rejection; a volume expansion on any approach toward the 19.50–20.00 zone is required to validate genuine structural repair.

Psychological & Probabilistic Context

The macro sentiment environment for the BTC/Gold ratio reflects a market that has rotated decisively toward gold over the prior ~18 months. The cycle peak at 40 oz was the high-water mark of Bitcoin’s relative dominance; the markdown to 12.60 reflects gold’s structural strength during a period of geopolitical tension (Iran, Ukraine, dollar uncertainty), institutional safe-haven rotation, and crypto risk-off behavior. The current recovery indicates that Bitcoin is regaining relative strength as gold consolidates its gains — but the structural underperformance remains intact. For the ratio to confirm a regime change (Bitcoin re-establishing relative dominance), reclaim of the 19.50–20.00 broken support and subsequent acceptance above the 200 MA (~22.00) is required. Until then, the ratio reads as relief rally inside a broader rotation.

Weekly Outlook

• Primary: Ratio digests near 17 with the 8 EMA holding as support; gradual extension toward the 19.50–20.00 broken support / 3M-6M-12M S/R cluster as the first structural overhead test.

• Stabilization: Weekly close above 20.00 reclaims the broken support zone; opens the 22.00 200 MA as the next directional test — the macro line that converts recovery into structural repair on this ratio.

• Structural Repair: Weekly close above 25.00 reclaims the declining 34/50 MA cluster; full structural recovery for Bitcoin vs gold and conditions for a return toward the 30+ zone last seen during the 2025 expansion phase.

Final Assessment

The BTC/Gold ratio trend is macro bearish in structure but actively recovering from the cycle low. The 12.60 capitulation print has held, the 8 EMA has been reclaimed, and price is now at 17 — testing the upper boundary of the recovery zone. The 19.50–20.00 broken support and the 22.00 200 MA define the overhead sequence that determines whether this is a relief rally inside continued gold dominance or the early stage of Bitcoin re-establishing relative strength.

What confirms continuation: a weekly close above 20.00 oz/BTC reclaiming the broken support cluster, followed by acceptance above the 200 MA at 22.00 — first credible structural repair of Bitcoin vs gold.

What signals a change: a weekly close back beneath 14.22 — would invalidate the recovery structure and re-open the 12.60 cycle base low for retest, with potential for a deeper rotation toward gold.

Cross-Reference to BTC/USD Analysis

The BTC/Gold ratio recovery is in sync with the BTC/USD recovery from the $65K base, but the ratio remains well below its cycle norms — meaning Bitcoin’s USD recovery has been partially driven by USD weakness and gold strength rather than pure Bitcoin demand. This is a critical macro context: a BTC/USD breakout above $84K (declining 200 MA on daily) accompanied by a BTCXAU reclaim of 20.00 would be a much stronger signal than BTC/USD alone. Divergence between the two — BTC/USD rallying while BTCXAU stalls — would suggest the USD-denominated rally is currency-driven rather than asset-strength driven, weakening the structural conviction of any continuation. Currently both ratios are improving in tandem, which favors the structural read; monitoring the relationship is the highest-value cross-check for the broader thesis.

The Fundamentals

Hashrate

Current reading: 890,000,000 TH/s (890 EH/s), down 110,000,000 TH/s (−11.00%) on the week.

Issue #13 characterized the hashrate environment as early stress — a sustained decline off the late-2024 peak near 1,250 EH/s that had moved beyond normalization and into a deteriorating mining revenue environment. The reading at that time was 830 EH/s, roughly 17% below the prior reference in Issue #12 and approaching the 2024 structural breakout zone.

That characterization requires a partial update in both directions.

In the weeks following Issue #13, hashrate recovered off the 830 EH/s low and staged a meaningful rebound — pushing back toward the 1,050–1,100 EH/s range by late Q1 2026, consistent with difficulty adjustment absorbing the prior drawdown and marginal miners rotating back online as price recovered off the cycle low. That recovery was the network self-correcting, as the proof-of-work mechanism is designed to do.

The current weekly print at 890 EH/s, down 11% on the week, represents a reversal of that partial recovery. Hashrate has now retraced back toward the lower end of the 2026 range, sitting approximately 28% below the all-time high near 1,240 EH/s printed in late 2024 and meaningfully below the recent 2026 recovery attempt. The weekly decline of 110 EH/s is not a minor oscillation — it is a sharp single-week move consistent with either a coordinated miner capitulation event, a large-scale curtailment due to power economics, or difficulty-adjustment lag following a period of elevated block production.

The chart context matters here. The 1W Glassnode series shows a clear macro structure: a sustained uptrend from early 2023 through late 2024 that brought hashrate from roughly 300 EH/s to 1,240 EH/s, followed by a volatile and structurally lower phase that began in mid-2025 and has not recovered to prior highs. The pattern of lower highs on the weekly hashrate — 1,240 EH/s peak, subsequent rally to approximately 1,100 EH/s, now 890 EH/s — mirrors the type of distribution behavior seen in price structure when supply is systematically exiting.

Riot’s Q1 disclosure — selling 3,778 BTC, or 2.6x quarterly production — is consistent with the revenue environment this hashrate chart reflects. Miners are not capitulating catastrophically, but they are converting treasury to fund operations at a rate that exceeds current production. That is a margin-pressure read, not a growth read.

Verdict: the partial recovery flagged after Issue #13 has stalled and reversed. Hashrate is back in the lower range of the 2026 band, down sharply on the week, and structurally below the late-2024 all-time high by more than a quarter. The proof-of-work moat remains intact — block production is continuous and difficulty will adjust — but the mining environment has not normalized. Early stress remains the operative characterization, and this week’s print does not improve it.

Avg Mining Cost

The prior reading, recorded on April 5, showed an average mining cost of $83,038 against a spot price of $69,519 — a cost-to-price ratio of 1.20, with the 30-day MA ratio also at 1.20. The conclusion at that time was cautious: ratio compression was occurring for the first time in the corrective phase, but the environment remained structurally unprofitable, with a 20% cost premium over spot keeping capitulation conditions active.

The current data represents a material shift in that read.

As of May 4, 2026, the average mining cost stands at $81,841 — down $1,197 from the prior period, a modest cost compression of approximately 1.4%. Spot price has moved to $78,436. The cost-to-price ratio has contracted to 1.04. The 30-day MA ratio sits at 1.11.

The compression from 1.20 to 1.04 on the spot ratio is not a marginal move — it is the largest single-period ratio improvement since the corrective phase began and is driven primarily by price recovery, not cost reduction. The April rally from the $65K–$67K cycle low through the $74K stabilization break has done more to repair miner economics in four weeks than cost efficiency gains accomplished in the prior several months. That is the correct read of the data: the price recovered, and miners followed.

A ratio of 1.04 means average production costs still exceed spot by 4%. The mining environment is not profitable on an industry-average basis — higher-cost operators remain under pressure and the 30-day MA ratio at 1.11 reflects that the structural imbalance has not fully resolved. But the distance between unprofitable and breakeven is now narrow. If spot holds above $80K and the 30-day MA ratio continues to compress toward 1.00, the next reporting period will record the first near-breakeven or profitable average mining environment since before the corrective phase.

The Riot Platforms Q1 data is consistent with this picture. Riot sold 3,778 BTC — 2.6x its quarterly production — not because it was in distress, but because margin pressure required treasury conversion to fund operations and capital projects. That is the behavior of a miner operating at the edge of the 1.04 ratio: not capitulating, but not accumulating. The treasury is the buffer, and it is being drawn down.

Verdict: miner economics have improved materially. The ratio compression from 1.20 to 1.04 is the most significant improvement since the corrective phase began and is price-driven. The environment remains structurally marginal, not structurally healthy, and the 30-day MA ratio at 1.11 confirms that the monthly average cost burden has not yet resolved. A sustained hold above $82K–$84K — the current average cost plus margin — is the condition that converts marginal into viable.

Top Assets by Market Cap

As of May 4, 2026, Bitcoin sits at rank #11 with a market cap of $1.578 trillion and a price of $78,866. The move from #12 to #11 — documented in Issue #13 — has held, and the gap above has narrowed. Saudi Aramco holds #10 at $1.773 trillion, leaving approximately $195 billion between Bitcoin and the next rank. At the current price and trajectory, that gap is not theoretical; it is a measurable structural target.

The market cap expansion is worth contextualizing. Issue #13 recorded Bitcoin’s market cap at $1.397 trillion on April 6. The current reading of $1.578 trillion represents a roughly 13% increase over that period — meaningful relative value gain in a compressed timeframe, driven by the price recovery from the $65K–$67K cycle low through the $74K stabilization break and into the current $78K–$79K range.

The cross-asset comparison on this snapshot is notable. Gold sits at #1 with $32.058 trillion, down from the $32.61 trillion reading in Issue #13 — a modest contraction at the top. Silver is at #4 with $4.271 trillion, recovering from the $4.12 trillion reading recorded six weeks prior. Both precious metals are printing red today, −0.73% and −0.72% respectively, while Bitcoin is +0.80%. The behavioral pattern observed on April 6 — Bitcoin higher while traditional safe-haven assets posted mixed or negative returns — is repeating on this session. That is now two documented data points, not one.

The equity environment on this snapshot is mixed. Apple is the standout at +3.32%, with Microsoft +1.51% and Amazon +1.33% adding to the green side. NVIDIA is −0.56%, Alphabet is +0.34%, and Meta is −0.52%. There is no clean directional read on equities — this is not a risk-on or risk-off session in any clear sense. Bitcoin printing +0.80% against that backdrop, and outperforming both precious metals on the day, continues to produce data inconsistent with a simple risk-asset correlation.

The rank structure above #11 is worth documenting as a reference frame. Saudi Aramco at #10 is the immediate target. Above that sits Broadcom at #9 ($1.994T) and TSMC at #8 ($2.062T). The #8 threshold would require Bitcoin to approximately double its current market cap — relevant for cycle framing, not near-term analysis. The intermediate target is $10, and the gap is $195 billion.

Behavioral note for the record: Bitcoin has now held rank #11 through a multi-week corrective phase in equities, a partial precious metals drawdown, and a Bitcoin price recovery from $65K to $79K. The rank was not held passively — it was earned against a contracting gold market cap and a Bitcoin price that recovered more than it gave back. Whether the #10 rank requires another broad-market drawdown or a Bitcoin-specific leg higher will be determined by the next price sequence. The structural case for the former remains intact until the weekly closes above $94K.

Bitcoin News

Highlights from the month of April

U.S. Military Is Running a Bitcoin Node — Admiral Paparo

INDOPACOM commander Admiral Samuel Paparo testified before both the Senate and House Armed Services Committees this week, disclosing that the U.S. military is running a live node on the Bitcoin network and conducting operational tests to secure and protect networks using the Bitcoin protocol. Paparo framed the military’s interest explicitly as a computer science matter — cryptography, blockchain, and proof of work — not a financial or reserve asset question. Bitcoin MagazineBitcoin Magazine

Structural read: The distinction Paparo drew is the relevant one. The military is not buying Bitcoin. It is testing Bitcoin’s protocol architecture as a network security and power projection tool — framed explicitly in the context of strategic competition with China. The financial narrative and the national security narrative are separate threads. This one belongs to the second category. Worth watching, not conflating.

Riot Platforms Sells 3,778 Bitcoin in Q1

Riot Platforms sold 3,778 bitcoin in Q1 2026, generating $289.5 million — roughly 2.6 times the 1,473 BTC it produced during the quarter — as the company redirects capital toward AI and high-performance computing infrastructure. Bitcoin holdings fell to 15,680 BTC by quarter’s end, down 18% year-over-year, with 5,802 BTC of that total classified as restricted.

Structural read: Riot is using its bitcoin treasury as an operational funding mechanism, not holding as a passive reserve. Selling 2.6x quarterly production signals deliberate drawdown, not routine profit-taking. The pivot to AI data center infrastructure is the corporate thesis — bitcoin is the balance sheet vehicle funding it. This is miner-to-market supply pressure that is quantifiable and trackable. It is not distressed selling, but it is selling. Context for the supply side of the tape.

Japan Moves to Classify Bitcoin as a Financial Instrument

Covered in Issue #15. Japan’s FIEA reclassification bill advances the regulatory normalization narrative. No new material developments this week beyond the bill’s continued legislative progress.

Iran to Accept Bitcoin for Strait of Hormuz Transit

Covered in Issue #15. The transit toll mechanism remains the operative detail — a nation-state accepting Bitcoin as settlement for strategic waterway access is a structural demand-side development, not a speculative one.

Morgan Stanley Launches First U.S. Bank Spot Bitcoin ETF

Covered in Issue #15. The MSBT launch positions Morgan Stanley as the first U.S. bank to bring a spot Bitcoin ETF to market directly. Demand-infrastructure expansion. Not a price catalyst.

Goldman Sachs Files for Bitcoin Premium Income ETF

Covered in Issue #15. Goldman moves from holder of third-party spot BTC ETFs to manufacturer of a covered-call yield product. Wall Street is building yield structures on top of Bitcoin exposure — a different instrument with a different objective than spot accumulation.

Pakistan Ends 2018 Crypto Banking Ban

Covered in Issue #15. The Virtual Assets Act 2026 opens formal banking rails to licensed operators in a 240-million-person market. Regulatory normalization at the infrastructure level. Banks remain barred from direct exposure.

If you have any suggestions, feel free to reach out to me on X @WillSanchezJr. I’m always looking to improve and add value in ways others might enjoy — just keep it Bitcoin only.

Live free and stack sats,

Will

The return of money is more important than the return on money.

— Steff

What Is A.W. Block?

A.W. Block is a digital asset estate investigation and advisory firm. We provide technical support for attorneys, probate administrators, and fiduciaries navigating Bitcoin and digital asset estates — asset identification, blockchain investigation, and court-ready documentation.

awblock.io

Found value? Share, subscribe, and/or send sats here: bc1qrlgzu0m94wdrsnxjg8qym7jtnudelgfypmjmaa

P.S.

If the structure in this issue makes sense but you want to understand the why behind Bitcoin’s long-cycle behavior, the latest educational piece is worth your time. It covers Saylor and Breedlove’s framework for money as meta-energy — the most rigorous philosophical case for Bitcoin’s role in civilizational coordination currently in print. The price charts and the theory point at the same thing. It helps to understand both.

Read: Money as Meta-Energy — How Saylor and Breedlove Explain Why Bitcoin Is Inevitable →

Most people will read this week as a bounce. They’re missing the structure. A weekly close at $78,670 on a near-Marubozu candle, decisively above the $74K polarity level I defined in Around the Block #15 as the markdown-to-transitional threshold, is the first weekly action to credibly challenge the lower-high/lower-low sequence from $122K. Stabilization is triggered. Structural repair is not yet earned.

None of this is financial advice.

Don’t trust, verify.

Let’s dive in.

TL;DR — Key Takeaways

Read more

The argument Michael Saylor developed and Robert Breedlove expanded, most accessible through Breedlove’s “What Is Money?” series recorded with Saylor as the primary voice, is perhaps the most philosophically rigorous case for Bitcoin’s inevitability that currently exists. It is physics applied to civilization.

Everything Requires Energy

Every product, every service, every act of human creation is a transformation of energy. Food requires sunlight, water, soil chemistry, and human labor. Buildings require the energy to quarry stone, fell timber, fire kilns, transport materials, and assemble structures. Software requires the energy to run data centers, power networks, and maintain infrastructure.

The second law of thermodynamics governs all physical processes, and production is a physical process. Work, the application of human effort and intelligence, is the primary mechanism by which we direct energy into useful forms.

The problem is that energy cannot easily be stored across time. Food rots. Fuel burns. Physical labor cannot be accumulated and retrieved later. You cannot stockpile last Tuesday’s work and deploy it next spring.

Stored value, like stored energy, leaks. The second law is why every monetary good in history has eventually leaked enough to fail. This creates a fundamental challenge for civilization: how do you coordinate complex, long-term cooperation, the kind that builds cities, maintains institutions, funds research, and transfers wealth across generations, when the energy that underlies all production is ephemeral?

Money as Meta-Energy

The answer is money.

Saylor’s formulation is precise: “Money is the highest form of energy that human beings can channel.” It commands labor energy, industrial energy, military energy, computational energy, and institutional energy. It is not energy itself. It is a protocol that encodes, stores, and transmits the value of energy across time and space.

Saylor draws a critical structural distinction: channeling energy across time is the store-of-value function; channeling energy across space is the medium-of-exchange function. Sound money does both without leaking. Every monetary failure in history is a story of leakage in one or both dimensions.

When you earn money, you are converting your time and effort into a claim on future goods and services. The money stores that claim. When you spend it, you are redeeming it. The quality of money depends entirely on how well it preserves the value of that claim between the earning and the spending.

Breedlove’s framing is concrete: fiat is a leaking rubber raft. Gold is a wooden ship, structurally durable but slow and heavy. Bitcoin is a steel container vessel.

Why Commodity Money Fails

For most of human history, the best available monetary goods were physical commodities: seashells, salt, cattle, silver, gold. Each achieved a high stock-to-flow ratio relative to what was technologically possible at the time. Each eventually lost its monetary role when new technology made increasing the supply easier.

But Saylor and Breedlove identify a deeper structural problem with commodity money. They call it the self-defeating nature of commodities as money.

When a commodity is chosen as a monetary good, demand for it rises. Rising demand increases price. Rising prices incentivize increased production. Increased production means more supply. More supply drives the price back down, destroying the savings of those who chose it. Any commodity faces this same dynamic. The mining or production industry will always respond to monetary demand with increased supply, and that supply will inevitably dilute the savings of those who trusted the commodity. This is an incentive structure, not a policy failure.

Gold was the best commodity money ever because its geology made this dynamic play out over centuries instead of years. Annual supply growth has never exceeded 2% of existing stockpiles. Even a 36% price spike in 2006 resulted in no meaningful increase in mining output. Production dropped to 2,370 tons in 2006, 100 tons below the prior year, and dropped another 10 tons in 2007 despite the elevated price.

But gold’s protection is geological, not mathematical. And geological protection has a ceiling. The same institutional capacity that eventually destroyed shells, beads, and stone money was turned against gold through government seizure, centralization, and paper substitution. The gold standard ultimately failed not because gold ran out but because its physical centralization made it vulnerable to institutional capture.

Bitcoin Channels Ingenuity Differently

Here is where Saylor’s engineering insight becomes critical. The history of monetary failure is fundamentally a story of misaligned incentives: every prior monetary good channeled human ingenuity toward increasing supply, which is exactly the wrong direction.

Bitcoin is the first monetary system designed to channel human ingenuity in the opposite direction.

In a commodity monetary system, miners profit by finding and extracting more of the commodity. Supply grows. Value dilutes. In Bitcoin’s system, miners profit by dedicating computational effort to securing the network. More mining effort means more security, not more supply. Supply is fixed. Security grows. Bitcoin proof-of-work requires energy input proportional to monetary value, which means Bitcoin is the only monetary good whose security scales with its market cap.

As Saylor put it in Episode 4 of the Saylor Series: “Bitcoin is the first monetary system where human ingenuity strengthens the money rather than undermining it.”

This is not an incremental improvement on gold. It is a categorical departure from every prior monetary technology.

The Thermodynamic Conclusion

Breedlove argues that monetary history follows a thermodynamic logic: the monetary medium that best preserves the stored value of human energy across time and space will eventually win every era of monetary competition.

Shells won when shells were the hardest money available. Metals won when metallurgy improved and shells became easy to produce. Gold won when long-distance trade made metals the most practical standard. Gold-backed paper won when transportation improved.

Bitcoin represents the logical terminus of this progression: a monetary technology that preserves value across time (fixed supply), transmits it across space at vanishingly low cost relative to value transferred, and cannot be debased by any party because enforcement is mathematical, not institutional.

Wherever humans engage in exchange, the monetary good with the best energy-storage properties will, over time, displace those with worse properties. This has been true without exception in recorded history.

The question is not whether Bitcoin will win the monetary competition. The question is how long the transition takes and what it costs to be on the wrong side of it.

Sources: Saylor Series, Episodes 4–5 | The Bitcoin Standard, Ch. 1–3 (Ammous)

“I honestly have no idea how one could look at the world of today, sincerely understand what bitcoin is and reject it.”

— Erik Cason

What Is A.W. Block?

A.W. Block is a digital asset estate investigation and Bitcoin advisory firm. On the estate side, we support attorneys, probate administrators, and fiduciaries with asset identification, blockchain investigation, and court-ready documentation. On the advisory side, we work with individuals and institutions on Bitcoin custody, accumulation strategy, and education.

awblock.io

Found value? Share, subscribe, and/or send sats here: bc1qrlgzu0m94wdrsnxjg8qym7jtnudelgfypmjmaa

Bitcoin broke the rectangle it spent ten weeks building. The daily took out $73,073 and extended to $78K before giving some back, which is the first real stress on the weekly markdown narrative since the February breakdown.

The lens this week is timeframe alignment. Daily structure has repaired. The weekly has not. The retest of the broken level is where these two frames either converge or diverge, and that answer matters more than any narrative you can put on top of it.

Price does the talking from here. The levels are defined. The probabilistic framework follows structure, not story.

None of this is financial advice.

Don’t trust, verify.

Let’s dive in.

TL;DR — Key Takeaways

Read more

Most people have never been asked to define money.

They can describe what it does: you use it to buy things, you earn it from work, you save it for the future. But a precise definition of what money actually is proves surprisingly difficult when you try to articulate it. The mental model most people carry about money is the source of a systematic blind spot that costs them real wealth over the course of a lifetime.

The confusion starts early. Economics education presents money as a given, a neutral instrument of exchange, something the system provides and individuals use. The deeper question, what makes a good form of money, and who controls it, and to whose benefit, is rarely asked. Understanding the answer to that question is the foundation of everything that follows in this series.

The Textbook Definition Falls Short

Every economics textbook defines money by its three functions: medium of exchange, unit of account, and store of value.

As a medium of exchange, money replaces barter. Without it, every transaction would require a double coincidence of wants: you need someone who has exactly what you want and wants exactly what you have. In a market with a thousand distinct goods, you would need nearly half a million bilateral exchange rates to operate. Money collapses all of that complexity into one common denominator.

As a unit of account, money gives every good and service a common price. Without it, economic calculation is nearly impossible. Businesses cannot determine profit and loss, compare costs across projects, or plan investments. With it, an entire economy can coordinate through the price signal.

As a store of value, money allows you to defer consumption. You work today, earn money, and spend it next month, next year, or in thirty years. This temporal bridge, the ability to store the value of your labor across time, is arguably money’s most important function. It is also the one most vulnerable to abuse.

These three functions tell you what money does, not what makes a given money good.

Carl Menger and the Science of Salability

Carl Menger, the Austrian economist who co-founded marginal analysis in the 1870s alongside Jevons and Walras, identified the core property that causes a commodity to emerge as money on a free market: salability. Menger defined it as “the ease with which a good can be sold on the market whenever its holder desires, with the least loss in its price.”

This was a profound insight. Money does not emerge from government decree or social contract. It emerges from the market as individuals repeatedly select the most salable commodity as an intermediate good in trade. Over time, the most salable goods become universally accepted, and money is born.

The implication: whether a given monetary good is sound is not a matter of political authority or social convention. It is a matter of physics and economics. Does the good maintain its value reliably? Can it be transacted without friction? These are objective properties that can be evaluated.

The Three Dimensions of Salability

Saifedean Ammous, in The Bitcoin Standard, builds on Menger’s salability concept to articulate three distinct dimensions.

Salability across scales: can the monetary good be divided into smaller units for small transactions and recombined for large ones? Gold can be alloyed and assayed at any scale. Cattle cannot be divided without destruction. This dimension favors metals over livestock.

Salability across space: can the good be transported to wherever it is needed at reasonable cost? This dimension favors dense, portable goods. A ship full of grain is hard to transport compared to a handful of gold coins of equal value. This dimension drove the transition from commodity to metal money.

Salability across time: will the good hold its value into the future? This dimension has two requirements. First, the good must be physically durable, resistant to rot, corrosion, and deterioration. Second, its supply must not be easily increased. This is the dimension that eliminated every monetary good before gold. Shells worked as money until Europeans could import them in bulk. Glass beads worked in West Africa until European traders flooded the market. Salt worked until salt production industrialized. Every time a technology emerged that made a monetary good cheaper to produce, that good lost its monetary role and the savings of those who held it were destroyed.

Stock-to-Flow: The Key Metric

Ammous captures the salability-across-time property in a single ratio: stock-to-flow.

Stock is the total existing supply of the good, everything accumulated and held across all of human history. Flow is the annual new production. The stock-to-flow ratio is stock divided by flow. A ratio of 58 means it would take 58 years of current production to equal the existing supply.

The higher the stock-to-flow ratio, the more resistant the good is to supply dilution. If a sudden price spike attracts new producers, a high-stock-to-flow good barely registers the new supply against the mountain of existing stock. A low-stock-to-flow good can be flooded quickly.

Gold’s stock-to-flow ratio sits at approximately 58. Annual gold production has never exceeded 2% of existing stock in recorded history. Even a 36% price spike in 2006 resulted in no meaningful increase in mining output. Production dropped to 2,370 tons in 2006, 100 tons below the prior year, and dropped another 10 tons in 2007 despite the elevated price. The geology simply does not respond to price signals the way ordinary commodities do. This is why gold became the global monetary standard while silver, copper, and every other metal remained industrial goods.

Bitcoin’s stock-to-flow ratio already exceeds gold’s, sitting at approximately 120 versus gold’s 58 following the April 2024 halving. And it will continue rising indefinitely, because the supply schedule is mathematically fixed by code. No price spike, no technological advance, no institutional decision can change it.

Money as Stored Energy

Michael Saylor and Robert Breedlove push the definition of money further, and their framework clarifies what is actually at stake when we talk about monetary quality.

Their starting point: every product and service in the economy required energy to produce. Food is transformed sunlight, water, and labor. Buildings are assembled energy. Software is organized computation. All human production is a transformation of energy. Work, the directed application of human time, attention, and intelligence, is the mechanism by which we convert energy into useful forms.

The problem: energy cannot easily be stored across time. Food rots. Fuel burns. The work you did last Tuesday cannot be stockpiled and retrieved next spring. This creates civilization’s core coordination problem: how do you save the value of today’s work for future use? How do you build things that take decades to complete?

The answer is money. Saylor’s formulation is precise: “Money is the highest form of energy that human beings can channel.” It stores the claim on future goods and services that your current work has earned. The quality of your money, its soundness, determines how much of that claim survives the journey from earning to spending.

Breedlove’s framing is concrete: fiat is a leaking rubber raft. Gold is a wooden ship, structurally durable but slow and heavy. Bitcoin is a steel container vessel. I think of this as meta-energy. Money does not store energy directly. It stores the value of energy. Inflation, the silent drain on the purchasing power of saved money, is the leakage. Each percentage point of inflation is a percentage of your life’s work being transferred to whoever receives the newly created money first.

Why This Framework Points to Bitcoin

When you understand money as a protocol for storing and transmitting the value of human energy, Bitcoin’s design becomes legible in a way that pure investment analysis cannot provide.

Bitcoin was engineered with a fixed supply of 21 million coins and a declining issuance schedule that will eventually reach zero. Its stock-to-flow ratio will continue rising until it reaches infinity. For the first time in human history, a monetary good exists that cannot be inflated by any party under any circumstance: not a central bank, not a government, not its developers.

More importantly, Saylor’s engineering observation: every prior commodity money channeled human ingenuity toward finding and producing more of the commodity, which is exactly the wrong direction for a store of value. Bitcoin channels mining energy toward securing the network, not increasing supply. More mining means more security. Supply is fixed regardless. This is not an incremental improvement on prior monetary goods. It is a categorical change in the physics of money storage.

This series will build on this foundation across the coming months.

Sources: The Bitcoin Standard, Ch. 1 (Ammous) | Saylor Series, Episodes 4–5 | Broken Money, Ch. 1–3 (Alden)

“Bitcoin is perhaps the first scarce thing in the world we can say we truly possess." — Jimmy Song

What Is A.W. Block?

A.W. Block is a digital asset estate investigation and Bitcoin advisory firm. On the estate side, we support attorneys, probate administrators, and fiduciaries with asset identification, blockchain investigation, and court-ready documentation. On the advisory side, we work with individuals and institutions on Bitcoin custody, accumulation strategy, and education.

awblock.io

Found value? Share, subscribe, and/or send sats here: bc1qrlgzu0m94wdrsnxjg8qym7jtnudelgfypmjmaa

Bitcoin is holding a technical compression zone on the daily while the weekly structure remains firmly in a markdown phase following distribution from all-time highs. Two macro-level news events this week — Japan’s reclassification of crypto as a financial instrument and Iran’s formalization of Bitcoin-denominated transit tolls through the Strait of Hormuz — introduce asymmetric macro tension: one is a legitimacy signal, one is a sanctions-evasion mechanism, and neither resolves the immediate structural question. Price does not care about the narrative until the level breaks. $73,073 on the daily and $74,000 on the weekly are the lines that matter this week.

None of this is financial advice.

Don’t trust, verify.

Let’s dive in.

TL;DR — Key Takeaways

Read more

Bitcoin is in a confirmed macro markdown phase, and April is shaping up as the month that determines whether this is stabilization or continuation. The monthly candle swept liquidity at $64,960, rejected strength at $76,008, and is now compressing below $73,000 which was the level that broke in March and converted to overhead resistance. Until there is a monthly close above ≈$73,000, the trend reads one direction.

None of this is financial advice.

Don’t trust, verify.

Let’s dive in.

TL;DR — KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Monthly structure: Confirmed LH/LL markdown from ATH; April is forming at the 34 EMA and lower monthly support ($61,000–$65,000); no change of character until a monthly close above ≈$73,000

• Weekly structure: Clean bullish recovery candle off $65,692 — above the $63K–$65K support zone — but one day of data inside a broken structure; $73,000 remains the level that matters

• BTC vs. Gold/Silver: Bitcoin held flat month-over-month ($1.387T to $1.397T) while Gold dropped from $36.83T to $32.61T and Silver from $4.95T to $4.12T; on a macro risk-off day, Bitcoin printed +3.53% against broad equity weakness

• Hashrate: Network is in early stress — 830 EH/s represents a ~17% decline from Issue #12 and a one-third retracement from the late 2025 peak near 1,250 EH/s; proof-of-work moat intact, mining environment deteriorating

• Mining cost vs. price: First month-over-month ratio compression since the corrective phase began — cost-to-price ratio moved from 1.35 to 1.20 — but production still costs 20% more than the market pays; capitulation conditions remain active

• Market cap / rank: Bitcoin reclaimed #12 globally at $1.397T; the reclaim was driven by weakness in equities and precious metals, not Bitcoin strength

• Primary scenario: Bearish structure intact below $73,000; the April monthly close relative to $71,000 is the single most important data point this month

The Technicals

Monthly

OHLC DATA

• Open: $66,993.31

• High: $76,008.43

• Low: $64,960.67

• Close: $68,226.39

CHART OVERVIEW

Bitcoin is in an active markdown phase on the monthly timeframe. Distribution from the ATH zone near $109,000 produced a confirmed sequence of lower highs and lower lows across successive monthly candles. That sequence has not been interrupted.

The February 2026 partial candle swept below $65,000 into the monthly support zone, then recovered toward around ≈$67,000. That’s the behavior of a liquidity flush and partial reabsorption within a declining trend — not a reversal. Price remains below the $71,000–$73,000 former support zone and below all declining short-to-medium term averages. Sellers control the monthly structure. Bollinger Bands remain wide with no compression signal in sight.

KEY LEVELS

Support/Resistance:

• $103,000–$107,000 — Rejection origin and prior ATH consolidation zone; distribution ceiling

• $71,000–$73,000 — Former structural support converted to overhead resistance; the current decision zone

• $63,500–$65,000 — Near-term monthly support; lower boundary of the current price compression range

EMA / MA Levels:

• 8 EMA: ~$83,000 — Declining sharply; well above price; bearish monthly momentum confirmed

• 34 EMA: ~$74,000 — Price testing from above; this is the monthly equilibrium line and a critical hold/fail zone

• 50 MA: ~$57,000 — Rising; macro structural support well below current price

• 200 MA: Not visible at current monthly chart scale

Slope of averages: 8 EMA and 34 EMA both declining. 50 MA still rising. The EMA stack is bearish with no cluster confluence near price — no demand zone identified by averages at current levels.

MARKET STRUCTURE

The monthly sequence from the October 2025 ATH is a textbook LH/LL progression. The break of structure occurred when monthly closes failed to hold $103,000, followed by failure at $73,000 in March 2026. That failure confirmed the transition from distribution into markdown.

The April 2026 candle is forming at the 34 EMA and the lower monthly support zone ($63,500–$65,000). The intramonth flush to $64,960 is the first monthly close-proximity test of that zone. No change of character is confirmed. A monthly close above $71,000 is the minimum requirement before any higher-low structure can be evaluated. Until then: markdown continuation with compression developing at the lower monthly band.

CANDLESTICK BEHAVIOR

Wide-range candle with upper and lower shadow — classification pending end-of-month close.

Context: Forming at the monthly 34 EMA and the $63,500–$65,000 support zone, following an intramonth sweep of $64,960.

Implication: The candle structure tells a clear story. Early March strength to $76,008 was rejected. A hard flush to $64,960 followed. Price has partially recovered to $68,226. The upper shadow at $76,008 signals supply re-entry on strength. The lower wick at $64,960 signals that buyers absorbed the initial panic flush. Neither side has produced acceptance. Month-end close is the only valid classification moment. A close above $71,000 shifts toward absorption. A close below $65,000 confirms markdown continuation.

PATTERN RECOGNITION

Post-distribution markdown — no discrete reversal formation identifiable at this stage.

Stage: Post-breakdown. Price is trading below the $71,000–$73,000 prior support zone with no retest confirmation.

Break Direction Probability: Continuation of the downtrend is the structural lean while price holds below $73,000.

Invalidation: A monthly close and sustained acceptance above $73,000 invalidates the markdown structure and opens the path toward structural repair.

VOLUME CONTEXT

Monthly volume during the January–March 2026 decline was elevated relative to the 2023–2024 accumulation phase — consistent with distribution-phase selling. The April partial candle’s volume is forming on a recovering session following an extreme flush. No exhaustion spike is visible on the current candle. Any reclaim of the $71,000–$73,000 zone requires volume expansion to confirm genuine demand absorption rather than a low-participation technical bounce.

MARKET PSYCHOLOGY

Participants who entered during the October 2024 – February 2025 range ($73,000–$103,000) are structurally underwater. The $76,008 intramonth high in April reflects residual buyer interest attempting to reclaim prior levels — that attempt was rejected by supply at the $76K region.

The flush to $64,960 produced forced exits from leveraged positions and stop-loss cascades from spot holders who entered during the 2024 expansion. The recovery to $68,226 is ambiguous. It may reflect accumulation-intent demand at the lower monthly zone. It may also be a technical recovery ahead of continued distribution. Without acceptance above $71,000, the crowd is operating in a fear-dominant, reactive state.

SCENARIOS

Bullish Scenario:

• Condition required: April monthly close above $71,000 with continued strength in May

• Key level to reclaim: $73,000 — former structural support must convert to acceptance zone

• Structure shift needed: Monthly candle printing a higher high above $76,008 on the next bar to establish a confirmed HH

Bearish Scenario:

• Condition required: Monthly close below $63,500

• Key level to lose: $63,500–$65,000 support band

• Continuation structure: Next structural targets at the 50 MA (~$52,000), followed by the $45,000–$48,000 measured move zone

SUMMARY

Bitcoin is in a confirmed macro markdown phase following ATH distribution. The April partial candle is forming at the 34 EMA and the lower monthly support zone, with the intramonth structure showing rejection of early strength and recovery from a liquidity flush. All short-to-medium term averages are declining and positioned above price. Sellers remain dominant. The $71,000–$73,000 overhead zone controls the directional bias.

WHAT MATTERS MOST

The April monthly close relative to $71,000 is the only number that matters right now. Anything below that level is not a change of character — it is noise inside a downtrend.

Weekly

OHLC DATA

• Open: $65,971.34

• High: $69,273.75

• Low: $65,692.29

• Close: $68,994.43

CHART OVERVIEW

Bitcoin’s weekly structure remains a defined markdown sequence from the ATH. The $73,000 zone broke in February 2026 and converted to overhead resistance. That is the structural fact everything else is subordinate to.

The current weekly candle opened at $65,971, dipped marginally to $65,692, and has since rallied to $69,273, currently sitting at $68,994. The candle’s character is a clean bullish recovery bar: small lower wick, large upper body, close near the weekly high. The $63,000–$65,000 support zone was not tested. The $65,692 low held above it. Price is now pressing into the lower boundary of the $68,000–$73,000 contested zone with one trading day of data. Bollinger Bands remain wide — volatility expansion is the current regime.

KEY LEVELS

Support/Resistance:

• $107,000–$109,000 — ATH zone and prior range peak; major overhead resistance

• $93,000–$95,000 — Prior consolidation support

• $73,000 — Critical structural level; former weekly support held for approximately 16 months (Oct 2024 – Feb 2026); broken and converted to overhead resistance

• $61,000–$65,000 — Weekly support zone below price; convergence with monthly lower band

• $47,000–$48,000 — Lower Bollinger Band zone; extended structural support

EMA / MA Levels:

• 8 EMA: ~$70,000 — Declining; well above price; bearish short-term momentum confirmed

• 34 EMA: ~$85,000 — Declining; significantly above price; trend control is bearish

• 50 MA: ~$97,000 — Declining; well above price; macro trend bias is bearish

• 200 MA: ~$60,000 — Rising; below price; long-term structural anchor rising toward price from below

Slope of averages: 8/34/50 are declining and stacked bearishly above price. The 200 MA is rising from below. Price is navigating a compression zone between $60K and $73K created by that structure.

MARKET STRUCTURE

The weekly sequence from the ATH is unambiguous: LH/LL at $107K, $93K, $73K — each level broken to the downside on successive weeks. The break below $73,000 is the defining event of this markdown phase. That zone held for approximately 16 months. Its loss was not minor.

No change of character has been confirmed. That is consistent with a relief bounce following an oversold flush, not a structural reversal. A weekly close and acceptance above $73,000 is the minimum condition before any shift in the LH/LL sequence can be evaluated. Until that happens, lower high attempts will attract sellers.

CANDLESTICK BEHAVIOR

Bullish recovery candle — small lower wick below the open, large upper body, close in the upper 90% of the week’s range.

Context: Forming at the $65,692 low, above the $61,000–$65,000 weekly support zone; week-opening strength off the prior week’s closing lows.

Implication: Per Nison, a candle closing in the upper portion of the range following a lower wick signals demand absorption. The marginal dip to $65,692 (0.4% below the open) and recovery to $68,994 indicates buyers responded immediately from the prior week’s closing level. This is not a hammer — the open and low are too close for that classification — but the close near the weekly high at $69,273 is a participation signal. Confirmation requires the following session to maintain above $68,000 and continue toward $73,000. A failure back below $65,692 negates the absorption read and signals an active test of the support zone.

PATTERN RECOGNITION

No discrete reversal pattern confirmed. The structure is a post-BOS relief bounce within a weekly channel breakdown.

Stage: Post-breakdown. Price is trading below the $73,000 neckline in a bearish flag/descending channel context.

Break Direction Probability: Continuation to the downside is the structural lean. The relief bounce requires acceptance above $73,000 to alter probability.

Invalidation: Weekly close above $73,000 on elevated volume invalidates the continuation structure and signals structural repair potential.

VOLUME CONTEXT

Weekly volume during the January–March 2026 decline was progressively elevated — consistent with distribution and forced liquidation. The week’s volume profile shows elevated activity on the recovery move from $65,692 to $68,994. That is a positive participation signal. One day of data is insufficient to draw conclusions from it. Volume must remain elevated through a close above $73,000 for the participation to carry structural weight. Declining volume on any move toward $73,000 signals a low-conviction test.

MARKET PSYCHOLOGY

The break of $73,000 in March 2026 trapped a significant cohort of buyers who entered during the 2024 bull expansion. Those participants are now underwater. The flush to $65,692 this week expelled weak hands and triggered margin calls, resetting positioning toward neutral or short-biased.

The sharp recovery to $68,994 — nearly erasing the entire weekly flush — reflects short covering and opportunistic demand. The crowd is now binary: those who held through the flush are relieved, and new sellers are treating $73,000 as the next distribution opportunity. That creates a contested zone between $68K and $73K that will resolve directionally on the weekly close.

SCENARIOS

Bullish Scenario:

• Condition required: Weekly close above $69,273 (current week high) with continuation into $73,000

• Key level to reclaim: $73,000 — full structural reclaim converts former support to acceptance zone

• Structure shift needed: Weekly candle printing a higher high above the most recent LH to break the LH/LL sequence

Bearish Scenario:

• Condition required: Failure to hold $68,000 into the weekly close, reversal back below $65,692

• Key level to lose: $61,000–$65,000 support zone

• Continuation structure: Measured move from the $73K breakdown targets $55,000–$57,000; 200 MA (~$60,000) is the first structural magnet below

SUMMARY

Bitcoin’s weekly structure is a confirmed LH/LL markdown sequence with the $73,000 break as the defining event. The current weekly candle is a clean bullish recovery bar off $65,692, closing near the weekly high. All short-to-medium term averages are declining and above price. The 200 MA (~$60,000) is the only rising structure, approaching from below. The $61,000–$74,000 zone is the active battleground. Sellers remain structurally dominant above $73,000.

WHAT MATTERS MOST

The $65,692 low held above the $63,000–$65,000 support zone. Whether this week closes above $69,000 and continues toward $73,000 — or reverses back into the prior week’s closing level — defines the near-term weekly thesis.

The Fundamentals

Hashrate

Issue 12 noted that hashrate had pushed to near 1 zettahash per second — a historic milestone — before pulling back modestly. The read at that time was normalization, not collapse. The conclusion was that price was correcting. The network was not.

That read requires an update.

The current reading is 830,000,000 TH/s, down 8.79% from the prior period and roughly 17% below the level referenced in Issue #12. The Glassnode 1M chart shows the peak near 1,250,000,000 TH/s in late 2024, with a sustained and accelerating decline now approaching the 2024 breakout zone near 830–850 EH/s. This is no longer a modest pullback after a surge. Hashrate has retraced approximately one-third of its peak value, and the monthly trend is pointing lower.

The network is not in catastrophic failure. Block production is ongoing and difficulty is adjusting. But the characterization from Issue #12 no longer applies. Miners producing at or above average cost are under structural revenue pressure, and the hashrate decline reflects that reality.

Verdict: the network has moved from normalization into early stress. The proof-of-work moat remains intact, but the mining environment is deteriorating.

Avg Mining Cost

Last month, the average cost to mine one Bitcoin stood at $88,641 with a spot price of $69,720. The conclusion was meaningful deterioration in miner economics driven by price falling faster than costs could compress. The imbalance was revenue-driven, not cost-driven.

The current reading shows improvement on both sides of that equation.

As of April 5, 2026, the average mining cost has declined to $83,038 — down $5,603 from the March reading. Current spot is $69,519. The cost-to-price ratio has contracted to 1.20 from 1.35, and the 30-day MA ratio has settled at 1.20 as well, down from 1.26. This is the first month-over-month ratio compression since the corrective phase began. The driver is cost reduction outpacing spot weakness, efficiency improvements and difficulty adjustments are starting to close the gap.

The environment remains structurally unprofitable. A ratio of 1.20 means production still costs 20% more than the market will pay. Higher-cost operators continue to face forced selling and potential exit. The pressure is easing at the margin, but capitulation conditions are not absent, they are present and ongoing.

Top Assets by Market Cap

As of April 6, 2026, Bitcoin sits at rank #12 with a market cap of $1.397 trillion and a price of $69,786. The vehicle for the rank reclaim was not a Bitcoin surge, it was equity and precious metal weakness. On a day defined by a macro risk-off event driven by tariff policy, most of the top 15 assets by market cap registered declines: NVIDIA down 0.21%, Microsoft down 0.28%, Broadcom down 0.42%. Bitcoin printed +3.53%, alongside modest gains in Gold (+0.23%) and Silver (+0.44%).

Gold’s market cap has contracted from $36.83 trillion in March to $32.61 trillion currently. Silver moved from $4.95 trillion to $4.12 trillion. Both reflect broad precious metal price weakness over the intervening weeks despite today’s partial recovery. Bitcoin’s market cap is essentially flat over the same period ($1.387T to $1.397T), meaning it held relative value better than either over the past month.

The behavioral data point worth documenting: on a day when global equities sold and traditional safe-haven assets posted mixed performance, Bitcoin moved higher in a meaningful way. Whether this is early structural decoupling from risk assets or a short-term anomaly driven by short covering will require several weeks of confirmation. The rank reclaim from #13 to #12 is, as stated in Issue 12, a function of cycle dynamics. But the correlation behavior on April 6 is worth tracking.

Bitcoin News

Highlights from the month of March

AI Agents Show Strong Preference for Bitcoin Over Fiat, BPI Study Finds

Kraken Secures Federal Reserve Master Account, Marking First Ever for Crypto Firms

Buy a Home With Bitcoin: Coinbase, Fannie Mae Bring Crypto Mortgages to Mainstream Buyers

If you have any suggestions, feel free to reach out to me on X @WillSanchezJr. I’m always looking to improve and add value in ways others might enjoy — just keep it Bitcoin only.

Live free and stack sats,

Will

"The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime." - Satoshi Nakamoto

What Is A.W. Block?

A.W. Block is a digital asset estate investigation and advisory firm. We provide technical support for attorneys, probate administrators, and fiduciaries navigating Bitcoin and digital asset estates — asset identification, blockchain investigation, and court-ready documentation.

awblock.io

Found value? Share, subscribe, and/or send sats here: bc1qrlgzu0m94wdrsnxjg8qym7jtnudelgfypmjmaa

On March 30, 2026, researchers from Google Quantum AI, Stanford University, and the Ethereum Foundation published a 57-page whitepaper titled Securing Elliptic Curve Cryptocurrencies against Quantum Vulnerabilities: Resource Estimates and Mitigations. Within 24 hours, the discourse collapsed into two camps: people screaming that Bitcoin is dead, and people screaming that nothing has changed.

Both are wrong. And as someone who works at the intersection of blockchain forensics and legal process, recovering digital assets from estates where documentation is nonexistent and custody is a mess, the implications of this paper hit differently than the average hot take on X.

Let me walk through what the paper actually says, what the popular commentary gets right and wrong, and what Bitcoin holders need to understand right now.

What Google Actually Published

This is not a blog post. It is not a press release with a product pitch attached. This is a peer-level research paper with detailed resource estimates, a novel zero-knowledge proof mechanism, and co-authors from three of the most credible institutions in cryptography and computer science.

The core finding: Google’s team has developed quantum circuits that could solve the 256-bit Elliptic Curve Discrete Logarithm Problem (ECDLP) on the secp256k1 curve, the curve Bitcoin uses for its digital signatures, using either 1,200 logical qubits with 90 million Toffoli gates, or 1,450 logical qubits with 70 million Toffoli gates.

On a standard superconducting architecture with current error rates, they estimate these circuits could execute on fewer than 500,000 physical qubits. That is roughly a 20x reduction over prior estimates.

Here is the part most commentary glosses over: they validated these estimates using a cryptographic zero-knowledge proof. They did not publish the circuits themselves. They published proof that the circuits exist, that they work, and that they meet the stated resource constraints, without revealing how to build them. This is responsible disclosure, the same framework used across cybersecurity when a vulnerability is real but the fix is not yet deployed.

The paper explicitly states that the team withheld circuit details because “the escalating risk that detailed cryptanalytic blueprints could be weaponized by adversarial actors necessitates a shift in disclosure practices.”

That sentence alone tells you the authors consider this a real and proximate threat, not a theoretical exercise.

The Timeline Question: Not Today, But Not Never

The largest quantum computer in operation today has roughly 1,200 noisy, non-error-corrected qubits. The attack described in the paper requires 500,000 physical qubits running error-corrected circuits. That is a massive engineering gap.

But the paper’s own analysis of historical progress shows something important. In the last decade, the estimated physical qubits required to break 2048-bit RSA encryption dropped from over 1 billion to under 1 million, driven by improvements in quantum algorithms and error correction, not just hardware scaling. The same trajectory applies to ECDLP. Quoting from Section II.C of the paper: “attacks always get better.”

The authors specifically warn against treating this as a distant concern. They note that quantum computing is still in its “era of ferment,” an early innovation phase with multiple competing architectures, where progress comes in discrete jumps rather than gradual curves. A breakthrough in error correction, code architecture, or modular interconnects could compress the timeline dramatically.

Their recommendation: the cryptocurrency community should begin post-quantum migration immediately.

What the Popular Discourse Gets Right

Some of the commentary circulating online lands on the facts accurately. The paper does reduce the theoretical ECDSA attack to 1,200 logical qubits. The circuits were withheld and a zero-knowledge proof was used in their place. The largest current quantum computer is indeed roughly 1,200 noisy qubits, a real and meaningful gap. BIP-360 is live on a testnet environment. And 500,000 physical qubits is the correct physical qubit estimate for the attack.

The questions being raised about the cost of running such a system are also legitimate. Nobody has built a 500,000 physical qubit machine, so any figure is extrapolation, but the extrapolation is instructive. Superconducting qubits currently cost between $10,000 and $50,000 per unit to fabricate. At that rate, qubit fabrication alone for the required machine runs between $5 billion and $25 billion, before touching infrastructure. Operational costs on existing systems run roughly $500,000 per year just for liquid helium, plus full-time teams of physicists and engineers, vibration-isolated facilities, electromagnetic shielding, and dedicated power infrastructure. For context, a 1,000-qubit system today is estimated to exceed $100 million in development and operational costs. The attack requires 500 times that qubit count, with error-corrected circuits that do not yet exist. You are describing a machine that only a nation-state or near-nation-state level adversary could build and operate. That is a real deterrent today. The problem is that the coins do not move, the public keys do not expire, and the attack only has to become economically viable once.

What the Popular Discourse Gets Wrong

This is where I have to be precise, because inaccuracies on both sides create real confusion.

On attack speed. Several posts circulating online describe the attack as taking “days.” The paper says the opposite for fast-clock architectures. On a superconducting cryptographically relevant quantum computer (CRQC), the attack could execute in approximately 9 minutes using a “primed” machine that precomputes half the algorithm in advance. That is close to Bitcoin’s average 10-minute block time. The paper describes this as enabling “on-spend” attacks, where a quantum attacker intercepts a transaction from the public mempool, derives the private key, and broadcasts a competing transaction before the original is confirmed. “Days” only applies to slow-clock architectures like neutral atom or ion trap devices. Getting this wrong changes the entire risk assessment.

On BIP-360. Some commentary frames BIP-360 as a “quantum-resistant output type.” This is misleading. BIP-360 introduces Pay-to-Merkle-Root (P2MR), which removes the vulnerable key-path spend from Taproot outputs. That is a meaningful improvement. It protects against at-rest attacks on Taproot addresses. But the paper states clearly: “P2MR, like all other standard script types in Bitcoin, is currently vulnerable to on-spend attacks. Thus, at present, P2MR constitutes a security patch for the Taproot regression.” BIP-360 does not introduce post-quantum signatures. It does not add new signature algorithms or opcodes. It is an incremental first step, not a post-quantum solution. The BIP’s own authors describe it as “a conservative first step toward quantum resistance rather than a sweeping cryptographic overhaul.”

On Bitcoin’s development readiness. Some observers claim Bitcoin developers “aren’t waiting for a crisis” and are “already shipping.” This overstates the current state of development. SHRIMPS, the post-quantum signature scheme generating discussion, was published on Delving Bitcoin as a research proposal. It is promising work, achieving roughly 2.5 KB signatures at 128-bit security, about three times smaller than NIST’s SLH-DSA standard. But it is not a shipped product. It is not a BIP. It is not integrated into any wallet software or consensus code. Blockstream deployed SHRINCS, a related hash-based signature scheme, on the Liquid sidechain in March 2026, which is a genuine milestone and the first production deployment of post-quantum signatures on a Bitcoin-linked network. But Liquid is a federated sidechain, not Bitcoin mainnet. The consensus requirements are fundamentally different.

On BIP-360’s cryptographic contents. Some commentary correctly notes that BIP-360 contains zero post-quantum cryptographic algorithms, and that there is no formal PQ signature BIP, and no coordinated protocol roadmap. That is accurate. A May 2025 analysis from Chaincode Labs confirmed that Bitcoin post-quantum initiatives remained “at an early and exploratory stage.” Where the framing sometimes falls short is in the implication that nothing meaningful is happening. Work is happening. It is just early, fragmented, and competing with Bitcoin’s conservative governance culture that historically makes protocol upgrades slow. The Taproot activation itself, a comparatively modest change, took years of discussion.

What Bitcoin Holders Actually Need to Know

The paper identifies four categories of quantum vulnerability for Bitcoin, and this is where it gets personal for anyone holding bitcoin or administering an estate that includes digital assets.

1. Weak Address Vulnerability. P2PK and P2TR addresses expose the public key directly on the blockchain. Over 1.7 million BTC sits in P2PK scripts, including Satoshi-era mining rewards. These are vulnerable to at-rest attacks by any quantum computer, fast or slow. P2TR (Taproot) addresses introduced in 2021 brought back this same exposure pattern, which the paper describes as “a security regression” from a quantum perspective.

2. Address Reuse Vulnerability. If you have ever spent bitcoin from an address and still have funds at that address, your public key is exposed on the blockchain in the spending transaction. The paper estimates approximately 6.9 million total BTC across all protocol types is vulnerable when address reuse is factored in.

3. Public Mempool Exposure. Every standard Bitcoin transaction currently exposes the public key during the settlement window. With the paper’s estimate of a 9-minute key derivation on a primed fast-clock CRQC, the probability of a successful on-spend attack against a Bitcoin transaction is approximately 41%.

4. Offchain Exposure. Using the same private key across multiple blockchains (Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash, for example), or sharing extended public keys with portfolio tracking services, creates additional attack vectors.

The critical takeaway: if you are using Taproot (bc1p) addresses, your public key is exposed. If you have reused any address that has previously spent bitcoin, your public key is exposed. The paper’s math says those coins become targets the moment a sufficiently capable quantum computer exists.

What is NOT threatened: Bitcoin’s Proof-of-Work consensus mechanism. The paper is explicit on this point. Grover’s algorithm provides only a quadratic speedup for hash functions, which is “all but consumed by the overheads of quantum error correction.” Under the most generous assumptions, a quantum miner’s hashrate would be orders of magnitude below a standard ASIC miner. Quantum computers do not threaten Bitcoin mining for the foreseeable future.

As Andreas Antonopoulos explains in Mastering Bitcoin, the public key is derived from the private key using elliptic curve multiplication, which is a “one-way cryptographic function.” Bitcoin addresses then add another layer by hashing the public key. The critical assumption underlying Bitcoin’s ownership model, that you cannot reverse the elliptic curve multiplication to get from public key to private key, is what Shor’s algorithm on a CRQC would break.

The Estate Problem Nobody Is Talking About

This is where my work comes in.

The Google paper devotes an entire section to “Dormant Digital Assets,” and the implications for estate administration are significant. Over 1.7 million BTC in P2PK scripts have not moved since the earliest days of the network. The paper assumes most of these private keys are lost. They cannot be migrated to a post-quantum protocol because nobody holds the keys.

The paper proposes three frameworks the Bitcoin community is considering: Do Nothing (allow quantum attackers to acquire dormant assets), Burn (render dormant assets unspendable via protocol change), and Hourglass (limit the rate at which dormant assets can be spent). A fourth option they call “Bad Sidechain” would use offchain proofs of ownership, like mnemonic seed phrases, to identify legitimate owners and return recovered assets.

For estate attorneys and fiduciaries, this creates a new category of concern. If a decedent held bitcoin in older address formats with exposed public keys, the timeline for securing those assets is no longer indefinite. A quantum-capable adversary does not need to find a hardware wallet or crack a password. They need to find a public key on the blockchain and run an algorithm.

This does not change what I do today. It changes the urgency. If you are administering an estate with digital assets, the window for identification, documentation, and migration to safer address types is narrowing. Not because quantum computers exist right now, but because the engineering path to building one just got 20 times shorter, and the people building them are telling you to prepare.

The Bottom Line

The Google paper is not FUD. It is a serious, well-documented technical assessment from researchers who backed up their claims with a cryptographic proof. The threat is not immediate, but the timeline is shorter than most people assumed, and the migration path for Bitcoin is long, politically complex, and not yet agreed upon.

The popular discourse on X is doing what it always does: compressing nuance into narrative. The optimists are overstating Bitcoin’s readiness. The pessimists are ignoring the engineering gap that still exists. The reality is somewhere in the middle, and it demands attention, not panic.

Bitcoin’s proof-of-work is safe. Bitcoin’s digital signatures are on a clock. The question is not whether the protocol needs to change. It is whether the community can reach consensus fast enough to change it before the clock runs out.

Satoshi addressed this in 2010, in the only public comment ever made about quantum computing risk to Bitcoin: “If it happens gradually, we can still transition to something stronger.”

The Google paper is telling us it will happen gradually. The question is whether we are listening. I believe that we are.

William Sanchez Jr. is the founder of A.W. Block, a digital asset estate investigation and advisory firm based in Pennsylvania. He works with estate attorneys, probate administrators, and fiduciaries to identify, trace, recover, and document blockchain-based assets within legal proceedings. For more, visit awblock.io.

Sources cited in this article:

• Babbush, R., Zalcman, A., Gidney, C., et al. “Securing Elliptic Curve Cryptocurrencies against Quantum Vulnerabilities: Resource Estimates and Mitigations.” Google Quantum AI, March 30, 2026.

• Antonopoulos, A.M. Mastering Bitcoin: Unlocking Digital Cryptocurrencies. O’Reilly Media.

• Nakamoto, S. “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.” 2008.

• BIP-360: Pay-to-Merkle-Root (P2MR). Bitcoin Improvement Proposal, Draft. bip360.org.

• Milton, A., Shikhelman, C. “Bitcoin and Quantum Computing: Current Status and Future Directions.” Chaincode Labs, 2025.

• SHRIMPS: 2.5 KB Post-Quantum Signatures Across Multiple Stateful Devices. Delving Bitcoin, 2026.

• Blockstream. “Post Quantum Bitcoin: Live Liquid Sidechain Deployment.” March 6, 2026.

• BTQ Technologies. “First Deployment of BIP 360 on Bitcoin Quantum Testnet v0.3.0.” March 20, 2026.

• Gigi. 21 Ways. (Part 1: Building Blocks of Bitcoin).

• Champagne, P. The Book of Satoshi Nakamoto.

Most people assume Bitcoin works like a bank account. It doesn’t. And the difference becomes permanent the moment someone dies holding it.

There is no institution to call. No account manager. No password reset. No court order that unlocks the funds. Either the heirs have what they need to access the Bitcoin — or it sits on the blockchain, visible to everyone, accessible to no one, indefinitely.

I wrote a full breakdown of what families and attorneys actually face when a Bitcoin holder dies, including the three problems that derail most estates before they even start.

A few numbers worth knowing:

2–4 million Bitcoin is estimated to be permanently lost — most of it due to exactly this problem.

0 recovery options exists once the private key is gone.

Read the full article here → https://awblock.io/what-happens-to-bitcoin-when-someone-dies/

Digital asset questions in an estate matter?

A.W. Block provides technical support for attorneys and estate administrators navigating Bitcoin and digital asset estates — asset identification, blockchain investigations, and court-ready documentation.

If you are handling a matter involving digital assets, early review is almost always the right move.

I recently worked on an estate matter that began as a straightforward liquidation but evolved into a two-year blockchain forensic investigation involving an undisclosed hardware wallet and unauthorized transfers after death.

The case involved over 67 Bitcoin, a hidden hardware wallet, and transaction activity that occurred after the owner had already passed away.

I wrote a detailed breakdown of the investigation and recovery process.

Read the full case study here → https://awblock.io/how-to-recover-cryptocurrency-from-deceased-estate/

Digital asset questions in an estate matter?

A.W. Block provides technical support for attorneys navigating digital asset estates, including asset identification, blockchain investigations, and recovery analysis.

If you are handling a matter involving digital assets, early review can often prevent complications later.

What began as a structured mid-cycle correction has now evolved into a confirmed weekly trend shift. Monthly structure has broken key shelves and lost the rising 34 EMA. Weekly structure has violated the macro higher-low that defined the bull run. Momentum is no longer cooling. It is expanding.

And yet, beneath price, the network remains firm. Hashrate holds near record territory. Miner stress is rising but capitulation remains absent. Bitcoin has slipped in global market cap rank, but it remains a trillion-dollar macro asset.

This issue examines the structural break on the weekly timeframe, the mature corrective leg on the monthly chart, Bitcoin’s relative weakness versus gold, and whether the fundamentals confirm stress or resilience.

This is a transition phase.

Structure first. Narratives second.

None of this is financial advice.

Don’t trust, verify.

Let’s dive in.

Subscribe now

TL;DR

• Monthly structure has shifted into a mature corrective leg with downside momentum intact. Price is testing the $60K–$65K macro demand zone, with the $55K–$58K region near the rising 50 MA as the next major magnet.

• Weekly bull structure has been broken. The loss of $73K–$75K confirms a trend transition from higher lows to lower lows. Weekly trend is now down until proven otherwise.

• BTC/Gold has entered a confirmed monthly downtrend. Momentum is expanding into macro support with no reversal signal yet.

• Hashrate remains structurally elevated near 1 zettahash. Network security is consolidating, not deteriorating.

• Mining costs have fallen, but price has fallen faster. Margin compression has intensified, though no miner capitulation is visible.

• Bitcoin’s market cap has rotated to ~$1.39T and rank #13 globally. Rank compression reflects cycle reset, not structural decline.

• Primary scenario: continued pressure toward the $55K–$60K region until clear absorption appears.
  The secular uptrend remains intact on the highest timeframe, but structural repair is now required.

The Technicals

Monthly

Bitcoin has printed a large bearish expansion candle, extending the corrective leg and breaking decisively below the $75K–$78K structural shelf. The rising 34 EMA has now been lost, shifting it from support to resistance.

Key Levels

• $102K–$110K: Rejection origin
• $58K–$74K: Current high-timeframe decision zone
• 34 EMA (~$75K): Now overhead resistance
• 50 MA (~$58K): Rising macro anchor

Structure

The monthly chart has transitioned from pullback to full corrective expansion.

This is no longer a shallow retracement. It is a mature corrective leg.

That said, price is now entering a high-confluence macro demand zone formed during the 2024 consolidation. The secular uptrend remains intact unless the $55K–$57K region fails on a monthly close.

Candlestick Behavior

The current candle is a long-bodied bearish continuation bar with minimal lower wick.

Sellers remain in control.
There is no capitulation signature yet.
Momentum is impulsive, not exhausted.

Large red candles into demand can precede either a climax low or multi-month basing. Neither confirmation has appeared yet.

Pattern Context

The post-high structure has resolved as a descending breakdown. Measured move projections align with the $60K–$65K region now under test.

Trend & Moving Averages

• 8 EMA: Bearish and well above price
• 34 EMA: Broken, now resistance
• 50 MA: Rising below, next structural magnet

Trend state: Confirmed monthly correction with downside momentum intact.

The 50 MA near $58K has historically acted as cycle support during major bull market corrections.

Final Assessment

Bitcoin is deep into a mature corrective phase. Structural shelves have broken sequentially, and downside momentum remains active. The next major decision zone lies between $57K–$65K.

Until clear absorption appears, the path of least resistance remains lower with a primary scenario of a continuation toward the $55K–$60K region near the rising 50 MA. However, price is now approaching historically meaningful macro support within an intact secular uptrend.

Weekly

Bitcoin has broken key weekly structure.

The decisive loss of $73K–$75K confirms that the macro higher-low anchoring the bull cycle is no longer intact. This is no longer a controlled correction. It is a confirmed trend transition on the weekly timeframe.

Key Levels

• $121K: Cycle high rejection
• $90K–$94K: Former demand turned supply
• $74K–$78K: Broken macro higher-low
• ~$60K–$65K: Current structural test zone

Structure has shifted from higher highs and higher lows to lower highs and lower lows. That is objective.

Candlestick Behavior

Recent weekly candles show:

• Large real bodies
• Minimal lower shadows
• Sequential continuation bars

This is momentum-driven liquidation, not absorption. There is no hammer, no compression, and no reversal signal. Sellers remain in control.

Reversal requires visible rejection or multi-week basing. Neither is present.

Trend & Momentum

• 8 EMA sharply down
• 34 EMA rolling over
• 50 MA declining and overhead
• Price riding the lower Bollinger Band

The weekly timeframe is now in an active downtrend with volatility expansion.

Volume

Volume has expanded during the decline, confirming participation and distribution. However, there has not yet been a clear capitulation spike with strong rejection. That remains the key signal to watch.

Structural Implications

The break of $74K ends the prior weekly bull structure. This does not automatically mean a multi-year bear market, but it does mean a new base must form.

The current battle zone sits at $62K–$65K. Failure there opens the $55K region near long-term trend support, the 200WMA.

Weekly Outlook

Primary: Continuation toward $55K–$58K if price remains below $73K.
Stabilization: Strong reclaim of $73K and compression above $65K.
Structural Repair: Weekly reclaim of $91K–$94K.

Final Assessment

The weekly bull structure has been broken. This is no longer a pullback inside an uptrend. It is a confirmed weekly trend shift.

Until exhaustion and structural reclaim appear, the weekly trend remains down.

Bitcoin / Gold

BTC/Gold has expanded decisively into the 12–15 macro demand zone, and this is not stabilization. The current monthly candle is a large bearish continuation bar closing near the lows, confirming momentum acceleration into support.

The breakdown below 18–20 and failure to reclaim it marks a confirmed range failure and structural transition into a monthly downtrend.

Candlestick Structure

This is a strong continuation candle:

• Large real body
• Minimal upper shadow
• Close near the lows

There is no hammer, no engulfing, no reversal signal. This is directional pressure, not exhaustion. A true reversal would require either a long lower-shadow month or a strong bullish reclaim. Neither is present.

Trend & Volatility

Price has expanded through the lower Bollinger Band and closed outside it, signaling volatility expansion rather than compression. Historically, this can precede short-term mean reversion, but not immediate macro reversal.

Moving averages confirm regime shift:

• 8 EMA sharply down
• 34 EMA rolling over
• 50 MA flattening
• 200 MA now overhead resistance

Alignment is fully bearish on the monthly timeframe.

Structure

Overhead resistance now sits at:

• 18–20 (former range floor)
• 26–27 (mid-range)
• 35–38 (macro top)

Below 12 opens risk toward the 9–10 prior cycle base.

Bottom Line

This is a confirmed monthly downtrend with momentum expanding into macro support. A short-term bounce is possible due to extension, but:

Trend reversal is unconfirmed.
Base formation is not present.
Continuation risk remains elevated if 12 fails.

BTC/Gold is now in structural repair territory.

The Fundamentals

Hashrate

Bitcoin’s hashrate recently pushed to a historic milestone near 1 zettahash per second (1,000,000,000 TH/s) before pulling back modestly. Even after the decline, network security remains structurally elevated and far above prior-cycle baselines.

This is not collapse. It is normalization.

Hashrate surged during the expansion phase and is now cooling as miner margins compress alongside price. The pullback reflects efficiency filtering and competitive adjustment, not capitulation. The long-term trend remains firmly upward, and the proof-of-work moat continues to strengthen.

In short, price is correcting. The network is not.

Average Mining Cost

As of early March 2026, the average cost to mine one Bitcoin has declined to approximately $88,641, down from $96,530 in last month’s report. However, Bitcoin’s spot price has fallen more sharply, now trading near $69,720. As a result, the mining cost-to-price ratio has widened further to 1.35, up from 1.25 previously, with the 30-day moving average rising to 1.26 from 1.14.

This marks a meaningful deterioration in miner economics.

While production costs have eased, revenue compression has intensified. Price weakness has outpaced efficiency gains, pushing the network deeper below production equilibrium. Margin pressure is now materially higher than it was one month ago, particularly for higher-cost operators exposed to sustained sub-cost pricing.

The decline in mining costs reflects ongoing efficiency improvements and network difficulty adjustments. However, those improvements are not large enough to offset the magnitude of the recent price drawdown. The imbalance is now revenue-driven rather than cost-driven.

Despite the widening gap, there are still no confirmed signals of miner capitulation. Hashrate remains structurally elevated, block production is steady, and network participation has not meaningfully rolled over. Historically, periods where Bitcoin trades materially below average production cost have functioned as consolidation zones rather than systemic stress events.

In prior cycles, similar environments resolved through price recovery or prolonged basing, not immediate miner exit. Current conditions reflect heightened cyclical pressure within a corrective phase, not structural weakness in Bitcoin’s underlying network.

Top Assets By Market Cap

As of early March 2026, Bitcoin’s market capitalization sits near $1.39 trillion, ranking #13 globally with price around $69K. The drop from last month reflects continued downside in the corrective phase, not structural irrelevance.

Yes, Bitcoin has slipped in rank. That is what mid-cycle drawdowns look like.

Gold has expanded further to roughly $36.8 trillion, and silver remains elevated near $4.9 trillion, capturing traditional safe-haven flows. Large-cap equities continue to dominate the top of the leaderboard. But Bitcoin remains firmly in the trillion-dollar class, still larger than many global corporations and sovereign-backed giants.

Rank compression is cyclical. In prior bull markets, Bitcoin has temporarily ceded position during deep corrections before reclaiming leadership in the next expansion. The current move from #12 to #13 reflects price volatility, not a loss of long-term relevance.

Bitcoin is consolidating valuation inside a cycle reset. Structural significance remains intact.

Bitcoin News

Highlights from the month of February

U.S. Treasury: U.S. Government Cannot Deploy Taxpayer Funds to ‘Bail Out’ Bitcoin

*Friendly reminder that Bitcoin doesn’t need bailouts.

Michael Saylor Says Strategy ($MSTR) Will Lead Global Bitcoin Effort Against Quantum Threats

Goldman Sachs Discloses $1.1 Billion Position in Bitcoin ETF Holdings

Bitcoin’s Lightning Network Surpasses $1 Billion in Monthly Volume As Adoption Grows

Morgan Stanley Has Future Plans for Bitcoin Trading, Lending, and Custody

If you have any suggestions, feel free to reach out to me on X. I’m always looking to improve and add value in ways others might enjoy—just keep it Bitcoin only.

Live free and stack sats,
Will

“Bitcoin is my stablecoin” — Matt Odell

What Is A.W. Block?

A.W. Block is a Bitcoin advisory firm focused on helping individuals and families navigate digital assets with clarity, structure, and conviction.

From digital asset recovery and estate-related discovery to long-term Bitcoin accumulation strategy and advanced market cycle analysis, we provide disciplined guidance rooted in first principles—not hype.

Our objective is simple: protect capital, reduce complexity, and help clients approach Bitcoin with confidence and strategic intent.

If you’re looking to deepen your understanding, safeguard your holdings, or build a structured Bitcoin plan, we’re here to help.

awblock.io

Found value? Share, subscribe, and/or send some sats here:
bc1qrlgzu0m94wdrsnxjg8qym7jtnudelgfypmjmaa

What began as a controlled post-expansion correction has now progressed into a direct test of the cycle’s structural integrity. Monthly price action has carried Bitcoin into rising mid-trend support, weekly structure is pressing the final higher-low that defines the bull market, and short-term momentum has turned decisively bearish. This is no longer about whether Bitcoin is correcting. It is about where that correction resolves.

At the same time, the foundation beneath price remains intact. Hashrate, while cooling from cycle highs, continues to trend structurally higher. Miners are under renewed margin pressure, but capitulation remains absent. Bitcoin’s market capitalization has rotated lower relative to global peers, yet it remains firmly within the trillion-dollar asset class, reinforcing its maturity rather than undermining its relevance.

This issue breaks down that tension. We examine Bitcoin’s position across the monthly and weekly timeframes as it tests critical support, assess the ongoing mean reversion against gold, and evaluate whether network fundamentals are confirming stress or resilience. As always, this is Bitcoin-only analysis focused on structure, probability, and context. No narratives. No noise.

None of this is financial advice.

Don’t trust, verify.

Let’s dive in.

Subscribe now

TL;DR

• Bitcoin is deep into a mid-cycle correction, with monthly price now testing the rising 34 EMA near 75K, a historically important equilibrium level.

• Weekly structure has broken below prior demand and is pressing the final macro higher-low at 73K–75K; the bull structure remains intact unless this level fails on a weekly close.

• Short- and mid-term momentum are firmly bearish, but downside appears late-stage rather than early, increasing the importance of support response over continuation.

• BTC/Gold is undergoing mean reversion, with gold leading short term while Bitcoin’s long-term relative structure remains intact above the 200 MA.

• Hashrate has cooled from cycle highs but remains structurally elevated, signaling consolidation rather than miner capitulation.

• Mining costs have fallen, but price has fallen faster, intensifying margin pressure without triggering network stress.

• Bitcoin’s market cap has rotated out of the top ten but remains above $1.5T, consistent with historical mid-cycle drawdowns rather than loss of structural relevance.

The Technicals

Monthly

Bitcoin’s monthly structure has moved decisively into a corrective, mean-reversion phase following the failed expansion above the 121K–125K region. As of February 2026, price is trading near $78.7K, extending the downside sequence and pressing directly into a major structural demand zone.

This month’s developing candle carries a large bearish body, reflecting continued seller control, but the location now matters more than the direction. Price is now interacting with the rising 34 EMA near 75K, a level that has historically defined equilibrium during prior mid-cycle corrections.

Key Monthly Levels

• 102K–109K: Former support turned resistance and origin of the rejection
• 59K–74K: Final demand before deeper mean reversion
• 34 EMA (~75K): Rising mid-trend equilibrium and primary support reference
• 50 MA (~56K): Long-term structural trend anchor

Structure

The monthly sequence now reflects a textbook corrective leg within a secular uptrend. The market has completed a failed retest of former support, confirmed a breakdown through the mid-zone, and followed through toward rising trend support. Importantly, this behavior is proportional to the magnitude of the prior expansion and does not constitute a trend failure.

Higher-timeframe structure remains intact as long as price holds above the 70K–72K region on a monthly closing basis.

Candlestick Behavior

Recent monthly candles continue to show bearish continuation with expanding real bodies, confirming persistent selling pressure. However, early signs of balance are beginning to emerge:

• Lower wicks are appearing as price approaches the 34 EMA
• Selling remains orderly rather than climactic

From a Nison perspective, this reflects de-risking and profit-taking after a strong cycle advance, not panic or forced liquidation. The market is transitioning from trend to equilibrium.

Pattern Context

The post-high structure resembles a descending consolidation now entering its later stages. With price reaching the measured downside region aligned with rising trend support, pattern risk is diminishing rather than increasing. Bulkowski’s work supports stabilization once failed ranges resolve into rising averages, particularly within primary uptrends.

Trend and Moving Averages

• The 8 EMA is lost and declining, confirming the corrective regime
• The 34 EMA is rising and now under direct test, acting as the key decision point
• The 50 MA continues to rise, reinforcing intact macro structure

Trend state is best described as correction approaching equilibrium, not reversal.

Weekly

Bitcoin closed the week near $77,000, printing a wide-range bearish expansion that pushed price decisively lower and shifted the weekly structure into a true structural test phase.

This was not a drift lower. It was a momentum-driven move that carried price through former demand and accelerated the corrective sequence that began after the failed expansion above cycle highs.

Key Weekly Levels

• $121K–$125K: Cycle high and distribution ceiling
• $104K–$108K: Failed reaccumulation zone
• $91K–$94K: Former demand, now decisively lost
• $73K–$75K: Macro higher-low and structural line in the sand

The loss of the $91K–$94K zone confirms that this is no longer a shallow retracement. Bitcoin is now unwinding toward the last confirmed weekly higher-low, which continues to anchor the broader bull market structure.

Structure

Price is accelerating into the $73K–$75K region, the most important level on the weekly chart. That level has not yet been broken, and until it is, the macro bull structure technically remains intact.

Everything between $90K and $73K represents corrective unwinding, not a confirmed trend reversal. This behavior is consistent with classical post-distribution market structure following failed range expansions.

Candlestick Behavior

The latest weekly candle is a large bearish continuation bar with minimal lower wick. From a Nison perspective:

• This is not a hammer, doji, or reversal signal
• Selling pressure dominated the entire week
• No meaningful rejection has occurred yet

This type of candle typically appears in the late stages of a corrective leg, often preceding a reaction low rather than marking capitulation itself. Reversal conditions would require either a strong lower-wick rejection or evidence of multi-week basing near support. Neither has appeared so far.

Pattern Context

The broader structure reflects a sequence of distribution resolving lower into a descending corrective channel. Bulkowski’s statistics show that failed continuation ranges inside bull markets commonly retrace 20–35% before stabilizing. Bitcoin is now approaching the upper end of that historical window.

Importantly, the longer-term structure still fits a cyclical correction, not a secular top.

Trend and Moving Averages

• 8 EMA: Lost and accelerating downward
• 34 EMA: Rolling over, confirming mid-trend momentum loss
• 50 MA: Now overhead, no longer supportive
• 200 MA: Rising well below price, macro trend intact

Short- and mid-term trends are firmly bearish, while the long-term trend remains structurally bullish. With that being said, it is now testing the integrity of its macro bull structure.

That structure still exists until ~$74K fails on a weekly close.

Bitcoin / Gold

BTC/Gold remains in a corrective, mean-reversion phase following its 2024–early 2025 impulse, with the ratio now testing long-term support near the rising 200 MA. Momentum has shifted in gold’s favor in the intermediate term, but the broader multi-year structure remains intact.

Recent candles show persistent selling pressure, though the latest bar’s lower wick suggests early support probing rather than capitulation. Price action reflects digestion after a strong advance, not a topping formation or structural breakdown.

Short-term trend conditions remain neutral-to-bearish, while the long-term trend stays bullish as long as the 200 MA holds. Volume confirms rotation rather than regime change, and sentiment has reset from confidence to caution.

Bottom line: BTCXAU is undergoing mean reversion within a secular uptrend. Sustained recovery above the 34 EMA would signal momentum repair, while a failure to hold long-term support would open the door to a deeper corrective leg.

The Fundamentals

Hashrate

Bitcoin’s network hashrate has pulled back from recent cycle highs but remains structurally elevated, holding near 850 million TH/s on a weekly basis. The chart shows a clear sequence of higher highs and higher lows across the broader trend, with the recent decline representing a normalization after an extended period of aggressive expansion rather than a structural breakdown.

The key signal here is context. Hashrate did not collapse alongside price weakness. Instead, it retraced modestly from peak levels reached during late-cycle acceleration, consistent with post-expansion cooling. This behavior reflects temporary adjustments in miner participation and difficulty dynamics, not a loss of conviction.

Importantly, the long-term slope of hashrate remains upward. Even after the pullback, network security sits dramatically higher than prior cycle baselines, reinforcing Bitcoin’s proof-of-work moat. Miners continue to deploy capital selectively, favoring efficiency and scale over indiscriminate growth.

From a cycle perspective, this is typical mid-cycle behavior. Hashrate surges during expansion, pauses or retraces as margins compress, and then resumes its climb once equilibrium is restored. There is no evidence here of miner capitulation or systemic stress. The network remains robust, competitive pressure is healthy, and security continues to compound over time.

In short, hashrate is consolidating, not deteriorating. The network is digesting prior growth while maintaining a structurally strong foundation. This supports the broader thesis that Bitcoin is in a consolidation phase, not a weakening one, with underlying fundamentals remaining firmly intact.

Average Mining Cost

As of early February 1, 2026, the average cost to mine one Bitcoin has declined to approximately $96,530, down from $99,013 last month. While production costs have eased, Bitcoin’s spot price has fallen more sharply, now trading near $78,400. As a result, the mining cost-to-price ratio has widened to 1.25, with the 30-day moving average holding elevated around 1.14.

This marks a clear shift from January’s stabilization phase. Even though miners are benefiting from lower average production costs, price weakness has outpaced those improvements, pushing the network further below equilibrium. Margin compression has intensified again, particularly for higher-cost operators who remain exposed to sustained sub-cost pricing.

The decline in mining costs points to continued efficiency gains and favorable difficulty adjustments across the network. However, these improvements have not been sufficient to offset the magnitude of the recent price drawdown. The result is renewed financial pressure, not because costs are rising, but because revenue has fallen faster.

Despite this imbalance, there are still no clear signals of miner capitulation. Hashrate remains historically elevated, block production is steady, and network participation has not meaningfully rolled over. This continues to align with prior cycle behavior, where extended periods below average production cost acted as equilibrium zones rather than systemic stress events.

Historically, environments where Bitcoin trades materially below production cost tend to resolve through price recovery or prolonged consolidation, not immediate miner exit. As long as network security remains intact and hashrate holds near cycle highs, miner resilience and long-term confidence persist. Current conditions reflect heightened pressure within a corrective phase, not structural weakness in the network itself.

Top Assets By Market Cap

As of early February 2026, Bitcoin’s market capitalization has declined to approximately $1.57 trillion, placing it at #12 globally among the world’s largest assets. This marks a notable step down from last month’s ~$1.9 trillion valuation and reflects the continuation of the broader price correction, with Bitcoin now trading near $78K.

Bitcoin has slipped out of the top ten as capital rotated toward a mix of traditional equities and hard assets. Meta Platforms, TSMC, Saudi Aramco, and Tesla now sit above Bitcoin in the rankings, while gold and silver continue to command the top positions. Gold has expanded further to over $33 trillion, and silver has climbed above $4.7 trillion, highlighting renewed demand for traditional stores of value amid macro uncertainty.

Importantly, this shift in ranking reflects relative performance, not a loss of structural relevance. Bitcoin remains firmly in the trillion-dollar class, maintaining a market capitalization larger than many of the world’s most valuable corporations. The move from #8 to #12 is consistent with mid-cycle drawdowns observed in prior bull markets, where Bitcoin temporarily ceded rank during corrective phases before reasserting itself during the next expansion.

The broader leaderboard underscores a familiar dynamic. Equities such as NVIDIA, Alphabet, Apple, and Microsoft continue to benefit from equity-specific flows, while commodities capture renewed attention in inflation-sensitive environments. Bitcoin, by contrast, is operating within its own cyclical rhythm, digesting prior gains rather than competing for short-term capital rotations.

In short, Bitcoin is consolidating valuation rather than breaking down. Remaining above the trillion-dollar threshold through a deep corrective phase reinforces its maturation as a global monetary asset. Rank volatility at this stage of the cycle is expected, and history suggests that periods like this tend to precede renewed relative strength once market conditions stabilize and the next expansion phase takes hold.

Bitcoin News

Highlights from the month of January

White House to Host Crypto and Banking Executives for Talks on Stalled U.S. Crypto Bill

Steak ’n Shake Adds $5 Million in Bitcoin Exposure, Deepening Bitcoin Commitment

9% of U.S. Merchants Now Accept Crypto, PayPal Survey Finds

Steak ’n Shake Adds $10 Million in Bitcoin to Corporate Treasury

U.S. Government Denies Sale of Forfeited Samourai Wallet Bitcoin, Says BTC Will Remain in Strategic Bitcoin Reserve

If you have any suggestions, feel free to reach out to me on X. I’m always looking to improve and add value in ways others might enjoy—just keep it Bitcoin only.

Live free and stack sats,
Will

p.s. If we get that break of market structure, look out for “Maximum Sats: The Bitcoin Bear Market Playbook | 2” shortly after that.

You can check out Edition 1 of Maximum Sats here.

“Bitcoin is radically changing the world by being unchangeable.” - Robert Breedlove

What is A.W. Block?

We’re a Bitcoin consulting firm helping clients navigate the complexities of the digital asset world with clarity and confidence. Whether it’s recovering lost funds, developing a long-term Bitcoin accumulation strategy, or mastering market cycles through advanced charting education—we’re here to make your crypto journey seamless, secure, and strategic.

If you’re ready to level up your understanding, protect your wealth, or take control of your Bitcoin future, let’s talk.

awblock.io

This issue breaks down where Bitcoin stands in that transition. We examine the secular structure on the yearly chart, the ongoing correction and key inflection levels on the monthly, the emerging stabilization on the weekly, and how miner economics and global asset positioning reinforce the broader picture. As always, this is a Bitcoin-only analysis focused on structure, probability, and context. No noise. No distractions.

None of this is financial advice.

Don’t trust, verify.

Let’s dive in.

Subscribe now

TL;DR

• Bitcoin remains in a secular bull trend on the yearly timeframe, consolidating above former all-time highs with no topping structure in place.

• The monthly chart confirms a mid-cycle correction, with the 34 EMA near 75K acting as the primary downside magnet if weakness persists.

• Weekly price action is stabilizing between 90K–94K, with rejection candles and declining volume signaling seller exhaustion rather than breakdown.

• Hashrate continues to stair-step higher near cycle highs, confirming strong miner conviction despite compressed margins.

• Average mining costs remain above spot, but stress has stabilized as price recovery narrows the gap and no miner capitulation is evident.

• Bitcoin holds its position as a top-ten global asset near a $1.9T market cap, reinforcing its maturity and resilience during consolidation.

The Technicals

Yearly

• Open: ~93.4K

• High: ~126.2K

• Low: ~74.4K

• Close: ~87.5K

Key Levels

• Y S/R (Mid): ~$46K–$69K → Former breakout region; current consolidation band

• Yearly Trend EMA: ~$50K → Rising and currently below price, acting as long-term dynamic support

Structure

Bitcoin’s yearly structure remains secularly bullish, defined by uninterrupted higher highs and higher lows across cycles. Each major corrective phase has resolved above the prior cycle’s breakout zone, preserving long-term polarity.

The closing year reflects consolidation above former all-time highs, consistent with historical post-expansion digestion phases rather than distribution.

Candlestick Behavior

The most recent yearly candle qualifies as a High Wave Spinning Top:

• Small real body relative to total range

• Long upper wick indicating supply interaction near highs

• No decisive downside follow-through

Within Nison’s framework, this signals indecision and equilibrium at elevated prices, not reversal. Contextually, it appears after a strong expansion year, reinforcing its interpretation as a pause rather than exhaustion.

Trend & Technical Alignment

• Price remains above the rising yearly trend EMA.

• No yearly close has occurred below long-term dynamic support.

• Volatility has contracted relative to nominal price growth, reflecting structural maturation.

Trend integrity remains intact.

Yearly Summary

The yearly chart continues to reflect consolidation at altitude within an intact secular uptrend. The current candle represents digestion, not reversal. As long as price holds above long-term trend support and prior breakout levels, the dominant bullish structure remains unchanged.

Monthly

• Open: ~90.4K

• High: ~94.7K

• Low: ~83.9K

• Close: ~87.5K

Key Levels

• M S/R (Upper Block): ~$102K–$109K → Prior support turned resistance; failed reclaim

• M S/R (Lower Block): ~$59K–$74K → Next major structural demand

• 8 EMA: ~98.5K → Decisively broken; now dynamic resistance

• 34 EMA: ~75.4K → Rising mid-trend equilibrium and primary downside magnet

• 50 MA: ~56K → Long-term structural anchor

Structure

Monthly structure has transitioned from impulsive expansion to a confirmed corrective phase. Despite the weakness, higher-timeframe structure remains intact. This is a correction within a secular uptrend, not a macro breakdown.

Candlestick Behavior

The current monthly candle extends the prior sequence of bearish follow-through:

• October: Bearish rejection near highs

• November: Large bearish continuation candle

• Current month: Further downside extension with limited lower wick

Psychology:

• Sellers remain in short-term control below the 8 EMA.

• Buyers are not yet showing aggressive defense, suggesting the market is still seeking equilibrium lower.

This is not capitulation behavior; it is controlled, methodical selling consistent with a mid-cycle correction.

Pattern Context

Price action since the highs continues to respect a descending consolidation / rectangle:

• Flat-to-slightly rising support now weakening

• Lower highs pressing price downward

Trend & Moving Averages

• 8 EMA: Broken and sloping down → confirms corrective regime

• 34 EMA: Rising → defines healthy trend structure and likely reversion target

• 50 MA: Rising steadily → confirms macro trend remains bullish

Trend state: Correction / mean reversion, not reversal.

Volume Analysis

Volume expanded on the initial breakdown and has since moderated. This supports:

• Validity of the move

• Absence of panic selling

Behavior aligns with distribution resolving into reaccumulation lower, not trend failure.

Outlook

Bullish Continuation:

• Conditions: Hold above ~$70K–$75K and stabilize near the 34 EMA

• Expectation: Base-building before renewed expansion

Neutral / Retest Scenario:

• Conditions: Continued trade below below the 8 EMA

• Expectation: Sideways-to-down grind toward the 34 EMA

Bearish Extension:

• Conditions: Monthly close decisively below ~$70K

• Expectation: Deeper structural test, still within long-term uptrend

Monthly Summary

The monthly chart confirms Bitcoin is in a defined corrective phase following a major expansion. Loss of the 8 EMA and failure to reclaim former support signal ongoing downside risk toward the rising 34 EMA, which remains the most important structural level below. Until buyers reclaim the $102K–$109K region, the path of least resistance remains lower, within an intact macro bullish trend.

Weekly

• Open: ~87.9K

• High: ~91.7K

• Low: ~86.7K

• Close: $91.4K

Key Levels

• W S/R: ~$119K–$120K → Cycle rejection zone.

• W S/R: ~$104K–$108K → Firm resistance after breakdown.

• W S/R: ~$91K–$94K → Current battleground.

• W S/R: ~$73K–$75K → Macro structural higher-low

• 8 EMA: ~92.5K → Down-sloped, immediate resistance

• 34 EMA: ~100.3K → Declining, mid-trend resistance

• 50 MA: ~101.7K → Untouched, long-term structural guide

• 200 MA: ~57K → continues to confirm that the macro bull cycle remains structurally intact.

Structure & S/R Zones

Bitcoin remains in a corrective sequence, now trading fully inside the $91K–$94K weekly S/R band.

This confirms:

• Mid-trend structure is broken

• Macro structure remains intact

• $90K–$94K is the active decision zone

Candlestick Patterns

This week printed a rejection-type candle:

• Large real body

• Long lower shadow

• Close in the upper half of the range

This reflects demand absorption, not a continuation-style selloff.

It is not a spinning top, hammer, or doji. Nison would classify this as a testing bar — a deep probe into support followed by recovery into the close.

Key implications:

• Selling pressure was absorbed

• Buyers reappeared below $90K

• No capitulation signature present

“When the market sells off sharply but closes well off the lows, buyers have quietly regained footing beneath the surface.” — Steve Nison

Chart Patterns

The failed rectangle between ~$105K–$125K has fully unwound into its statistical retracement zone.

Bulkowski statistics:
Failed rectangles inside uptrends typically retrace 10–25% before stabilizing. Bitcoin has now retraced approximately 25%, satisfying this expectation.

Schabacker framework:
This remains a secondary reaction within a primary trend, not a primary reversal. The structure resembles an emerging descending corrective channel, which historically resolves upward more than 60% of the time inside bull trends.

Volume Analysis

Volume remains elevated but is declining relative to the capitulation spike, indicating diminishing selling pressure. The presence of a long lower shadow on reduced volume supports supply exhaustion, not panic. Buyer absorption is evident in the $90K–$92K zone. If volume contracts further while price holds this region, conditions favor early accumulation.

Psychological & Probabilistic Context

The rejection from ~$104K–$108K triggered emotional selling, but under Douglas’ framework this represents a probabilistic structural test, not a trend failure.

Professional focus remains on:

• Structural pivots

• Supply absorption

• Probability shifts

“Consistent traders think in probabilities, not absolutes.” — Mark Douglas

Macro structure remains bullish until $73K is broken.

Primary Scenario — Stabilization ($90K–$94K)

• Condition: Weekly closes inside range

• Implication: Base development below $100K

• Invalidation: Weekly close below $89K

Recovery Scenario

• Condition: Reclaim 8 EMA and 34 EMA ($92.5K–$100.3K)

Continuation Risk

• Condition: Close below $89K on expanding volume

• Implication: Unwind toward $73K macro higher-low

Weekly Summary

Bitcoin remains in an extended corrective phase, but macro structure is unbroken.
The weekly rejection candle, volume behavior, and Bollinger Band overshoot all point to seller exhaustion, not cycle failure.

Bitcoin / Gold

BTC/XAU has completed its downside objective and is now testing the lowest-probability zone for trend continuation. While the weekly trend remains bearish, the market is no longer in an optimal position for aggressive downside bets. The next few weekly closes will determine whether this level becomes a base or merely a pause before further weakness.

The Fundamentals

Hashrate

Bitcoin’s network hashrate has continued to press higher, holding near cycle highs around 1.05 billion TH/s despite extended price consolidation. The broader structure remains defined by higher lows, with recent drawdowns proving shallow and short-lived relative to the prevailing uptrend in computational power.

What stands out is persistence. Hashrate strength is being maintained even as price remains well below recent highs and miner margins stay compressed. This confirms that the marginal miner exiting the network has largely already occurred. Remaining participants are efficient, well-capitalized, and operating with a longer-term horizon.

From a cycle perspective, this behavior is consistent with mid-cycle consolidation rather than stress. Hashrate is no longer accelerating vertically, but it is not rolling over either. Instead, it is stair-stepping higher, signaling steady capital deployment and ongoing infrastructure expansion.

In short, network security continues to strengthen while price digests prior gains. Miner conviction remains intact, and hashrate is once again leading price rather than reacting to it, reinforcing the view that the current phase is consolidation, not deterioration.

Average Mining Cost

As of early January 2026, the average cost to mine one Bitcoin is estimated at $102,372, modestly higher than last month’s $101,730. With Bitcoin trading near $94,300, the mining cost-to-price ratio has eased to approximately 1.12, while the 30-day moving average of the ratio sits at 1.15, largely unchanged from the prior period.

This represents a subtle but important shift from December’s conditions. While miners remain operating below equilibrium, the gap between production cost and spot price has narrowed slightly as price has recovered faster than costs. The result is continued margin compression, but no longer an accelerating one. Stress remains present, yet it is stabilizing rather than intensifying.

The modest rise in average mining cost suggests operational inputs have plateaued after prior easing from difficulty adjustments and efficiency gains. At the same time, price recovery has reduced immediate pressure on miner balance sheets. Higher-cost operators remain constrained, while efficient miners continue to consolidate share, reinforcing the ongoing bifurcation within the mining landscape.

Crucially, there are still no signs of miner capitulation. Hashrate remains near cycle highs, block production is stable, and network participation has not meaningfully declined. This mirrors prior mid-cycle periods where Bitcoin traded below average production cost without triggering structural stress, instead forming equilibrium zones ahead of longer-term realignment.

Historically, sustained periods where price hovers near or modestly below production cost tend to resolve through price recovery rather than miner retreat. As long as Bitcoin remains within this band, miner resilience and network confidence remain intact, supporting the view that current conditions reflect consolidation, not systemic weakness.

Top Assets By Market Cap

As of early January 2026, Bitcoin’s market capitalization has rebounded to approximately $1.89 trillion, maintaining its position at #8 globally among the world’s largest assets. This marks a modest recovery from the December lows near $1.83 trillion, reflecting stabilization alongside the ongoing price consolidation in the low-to-mid $90K range.

Bitcoin remains positioned below Amazon and above TSMC and Meta Platforms, firmly anchored within the global top ten. While it has not yet reclaimed the #7 ranking, the ability to hold a near-$2 trillion valuation through a corrective phase reinforces Bitcoin’s status as a mature, tier-one macro asset rather than a speculative outlier.

The broader leaderboard highlights a familiar divergence. Gold continues to dominate the store-of-value category at over $30 trillion, while equities such as NVIDIA, Apple, Microsoft, and Alphabet retain elevated valuations driven by equity-specific capital flows. Silver has pushed higher as well, reflecting renewed interest in hard assets during macro uncertainty.

Bitcoin’s relative positioning reflects cycle mechanics rather than structural weakness. After a strong expansion phase earlier in the cycle, the current rotation lower represents consolidation, not loss of relevance. Maintaining top-ten status during periods of tightening liquidity, elevated rates, and heightened volatility underscores Bitcoin’s durability as a global monetary asset.

In short, Bitcoin continues to consolidate rank rather than surrender it. Holding a trillion-dollar-plus valuation during a corrective regime confirms structural maturity and leaves Bitcoin well positioned for relative strength once broader market conditions normalize and the next expansion phase emerges.

Bitcoin News

Highlights from the month of December

World’s Second Largest Asset Manager Vanguard Opens Its Platform to Bitcoin and Crypto ETFs: Bloomberg

Bank of America Backs 4% Crypto Allocation for Wealth Clients as Wall Street Embraces Bitcoin

BlackRock CEO Larry Fink Says He Was Wrong About Bitcoin, Reveals a ‘Big Shift’ in His View

If you have any suggestions, feel free to reach out to me on X. I’m always looking to improve and add value in ways others might enjoy—just keep it Bitcoin only.

Live free and stack sats,
Will

“Bitcoin is a device for transferring wealth from the impatient to the patient.” — Stephan Livera

What is A.W. Block?

We’re a Bitcoin consulting firm helping clients navigate the complexities of the digital asset world with clarity and confidence. Whether it’s recovering lost funds, developing a long-term Bitcoin accumulation strategy, or mastering market cycles through advanced charting education—we’re here to make your crypto journey seamless, secure, and strategic.

If you’re ready to level up your understanding, protect your wealth, or take control of your Bitcoin future, let’s talk.

awblock.io

In this issue, we dissect Bitcoin’s monthly and weekly trend structure, analyze the renewed test of mid-cycle support, examine miner economics and hashrate resilience, and review Bitcoin’s positioning among the world’s top assets. As always, this is a Bitcoin-only publication with no noise, no distractions, and nothing off-topic.

None of this is financial advice.

Don’t trust, verify.

Let’s dive in.

Subscribe now

TL;DR

• Bitcoin confirmed a full monthly break of the 8 EMA, shifting the market from pullback to correction while the macro trend remains intact.

• Price sits inside the key 90K–94K demand zone; losing this range exposes 76K, while holding it forms the foundation for multi-month consolidation.

• Weekly candle shows clear demand absorption with a strong lower wick, signaling seller exhaustion rather than trend failure.

• Hashrate hit a new high and continues rising despite price pressure, reflecting strong miner conviction and network strength.

• Mining cost now exceeds spot by a wide margin, tightening miner margins but showing no signs of capitulation.

• Bitcoin’s market cap retraced to $1.83T but remains firmly in the global top ten as part of a normal mid-cycle consolidation.

The Technicals

Monthly

Close: 90,384.60
Open: 109,620.58
High: 111,207.47
Low: 80,619.71

Key Levels

• M Upper S/R: ≈125K. Confirmed rejection.

• M Mid S/R: 102K–110K. Lost. Now resistance.

• M Lower S/R: 59K–74K. Primary demand.

• 8 EMA: 101,607. First decisive monthly loss since 2023.

• 34 EMA: 74,714. Rising mid-trend equilibrium.

• 50 MA: 55,667. Stable macro anchor.

Structure and S/R Zones

November produced a full-bodied bearish continuation candle, validating October’s supply rejection and completing the transition from a controlled pullback to a confirmed correction. Price slipped through the 107K–110K mid-zone and settled inside the 91K–94K demand block.

This is a textbook polarity shift per Schabacker:

• Support at 102K–110K is now resistance.

• Demand at ≈82K is now the active stabilizing zone.

Macro trend remains structurally intact because higher lows across the full cycle remain unbroken. The short-term structure, however, is no longer a mild reversion. It is an established correction.

Candlestick Analysis

• October printed a rejection candle.

• November printed the follow-through: a large bearish body, minimal lower shadow, and decisive momentum.

The two-month sequence communicates a clean shift from equilibrium to correction pressure. This is not capitulatory behavior. It is controlled selling triggered by the break of the 8 EMA.

Trend and Moving Averages

• 8 EMA broken. Confirms correction.

• 34 EMA rising. Holds mid-trend structure.

• 50 MA rising. Long-term trend intact.

The monthly loss of the 8 EMA confirms the shift from impulse to correction. Neither the 34 EMA nor the 50 MA suggests macro reversal. This is mid-cycle cooling.

Volume Behavior

Volume expanded relative to October’s contraction. This validates the breakdown’s legitimacy. Distribution remains controlled rather than emotional. No capitulation signature is present.

Psychological Context

Breaking a long-respected EMA produces an overreaction in sentiment. Fear is elevated, but pattern behavior remains orderly. Douglas context: the market is delivering a functional correction rather than a structural end. The emotional reading is disproportionate to the actual technical damage.

“The market gives you what you need, not what you want.” — Mark Douglas
A disciplined mindset acknowledges the correction without projecting future collapse.

Outlook

Bullish Continuation

• Low probability short-term. Reclaiming 107K–110K resets momentum and points back to 121K–125K.

Neutral Range

• Primary scenario. Holding 91K–94K produces a multi-month rectangle between 91K and 110K.

Bearish Continuation

• Triggered by a monthly close under 91K. Target region aligns with 76K and the rising 34 EMA.

Monthly Assessment

The month confirms a clean break of the 8 EMA and converts October’s rejection into a defined correction. Bitcoin may face its most consequential support ≈74K toward the mid-trend 34 EMA in an orderly continuation of the corrective phase.. Hold this range and the macro uptrend remains unchanged.

Weekly

Open: 86,851.70
High: 93,104.72
Low: 85,297.04
Close: 90,384.60
Volume: 91.41K

Key Levels

• W S/R 121K–125K. Cycle rejection.

• W S/R 104K–108K. Firm resistance after breakdown.

• W S/R 90K–94K. Active battleground.

• W S/R 73K–75K. Macro higher-low.

• 8 EMA: 100,202K

• 34 EMA: 104,042K

• 50 MA: 102,416K

• 200 MA: 55,839

Structure and S/R Zones

Bitcoin’s corrective sequence extends into the current week as price trades fully inside the 90K–94K weekly demand block. The breakdown from 104K–108K remains unreclaimed, confirming mid-trend damage but not macro reversal. The macro higher-low structure at 73K remains untouched.

The weekly range expanded sharply — 85.29K to 93.10K — showing volatility expansion following the initial breakdown. Despite that volatility, the weekly close above 90K demonstrates firm defense of the demand area. Stabilization, not cascade, is the current read.

Candlestick Analysis

The weekly candle presents as a rejection-type structure per Nison:

• Large real body.

• Extended lower shadow.

• Close in the upper half of the range.

This is a classic test-and-reject bar. Sellers drove deeply into support early in the week, but buyers absorbed the pressure and forced a recovery close.

• Not a hammer, not a spinning top — a rejection candle.

Key implications:

• Deep intraday selling was absorbed.

• Demand surfaced beneath 90K.

• No capitulation signature is present.

Nison’s principle applies: heavy probing into support followed by a recovery close signals hidden bid strength.

Pattern Structure

The failure of the 106K–125K rectangle has now fully unwound into its expected retracement zone. Bulkowski’s historical range for such failures is 10–25 percent; bitcoin’s drop matches that behavior.

Schabacker: this remains a secondary reaction inside a primary uptrend.
A developing descending channel beneath 100K is now visible. In uptrends, this structure resolves upward more than half the time once selling pressure exhausts.

Trend and Moving Averages

8 EMA at 100.2K — immediate dynamic resistance.
34 EMA at 104.0K — declining; mid-trend resistance.
50 MA at 102.4K — untested; primary structural guide.
200 MA at 55.8K — distant, confirming the intact macro cycle.

The averages remain bullishly stacked despite flattening. Distance between price and the moving-average cluster indicates a volatility overshoot rather than trend termination.

Volume Behavior

Volume remains elevated relative to the prior consolidation but is declining from the breakdown peak. The long lower wick on declining volume signals early supply exhaustion. Buyer absorption around 90K–92K is now measurable. A second week of contracted volume above 90K would mark early accumulation.

Psychological Context

The mid-zone breakdown triggered emotional selling, but structural damage is limited. Douglas’ lens applies: this is a probabilistic test of support, not a structural failure.

Professionals evaluate pivots and absorption. Retail reacts to emotion and recency.

Until 73K breaks, the bull cycle remains structurally intact.

Outlook

Bullish Continuation

• Low probability short-term. Reclaiming 100K–104K (8 EMA and 34 EMA cluster) resets weekly momentum and opens a move back toward 106K–110K.

Neutral Range

• Primary scenario. Holding 90K–94K produces a multi-week consolidation base beneath 100K, allowing structure to stabilize before any trend resumption.

Bearish Continuation

• Triggered by a weekly close under 89K. Target region aligns with 73K–75K, consistent with the descending channel’s lower boundary and the macro higher-low zone.

Weekly Assessment

Bitcoin remains inside a multi-week corrective phase. The long lower wick, volume contraction, and volatility overshoot all reflect seller fatigue rather than macro breakdown. The 90K–94K region remains the fulcrum of the weekly structure. As long as it holds, this phase is characteristic of base formation, not cycle termination.

Bitcoin / Gold

BTC/XAU has broken its multi-quarter range and is now testing its long-term structural floor at the 200 MA. Momentum remains sharply negative, and bulls have not yet defended the level with any recognizable candlestick reversal. Structure holds only as long as 18–20 remains intact. Without stabilization, the trend bias remains downward.

The Fundamentals

Hashrate

Bitcoin’s network hashrate has climbed back to 1.05 billion TH/s, marking a 1.8% increase from last month and continuing its steady rise after a brief period of leveling off in late October. The trend of higher lows remains firmly intact, showcasing ongoing miner conviction and investment despite tightening margins across the network.

This continued growth during a period of price retracement highlights a familiar mid-cycle behavior where miners strengthen operations even as spot markets consolidate. Energy-efficient mining setups and large-scale infrastructure expansions, particularly from regions utilizing hydro and flare gas, continue to contribute to Bitcoin’s expanding security base.

Hashrate growth of this nature reinforces the protocol’s resilience. Each incremental increase in computational power raises network security, reduces vulnerability, and underscores long-term confidence from miners who are clearly building for the next leg of the cycle rather than reacting to short-term price swings.

In short, the network remains in excellent health. Miner conviction is strong, capital deployment is steady, and the hashrate is once again leading price—just as it has in every prior cycle.

“Hashrate follows belief, and belief is still climbing.”

Average Mining Cost

As of December 1, 2025, the average cost to mine one Bitcoin is estimated at $102,385, a meaningful decrease from last month’s $113,676. With Bitcoin currently trading around $91,611 (as of December 2), the mining cost-to-price ratio has risen sharply to 1.19, compared to 1.03 in early November. The 30-day moving average of the ratio now sits at 1.14, up from 0.97 last month.

This shift marks a notable change from the prior report. While November’s data showed mining cost only slightly exceeding spot price, December now reflects a much wider gap, with production cost running well above market value. This indicates a more pronounced period of miner margin compression. When the spot price sits meaningfully below average production cost, higher-cost miners face elevated financial strain, while more efficient operators tend to consolidate share and strengthen competitive positioning.

The decline in average mining cost suggests some easing of operational inputs, likely tied to recent difficulty adjustments and incremental efficiency improvements across the network. However, because price fell at a faster rate than cost, miners overall are now operating under tighter conditions despite the lower cost baseline.

Despite this compression, there are still no visible signs of miner capitulation. Hash rate remains near cycle highs, block production is stable, and total network hashrate has not meaningfully rolled over. This aligns with prior-cycle behavior, where miners typically endure below-equilibrium periods without immediate retreat, especially when long-term expectations remain bullish.

Historically, stretches where Bitcoin trades below average production cost often mark cyclical equilibrium zones rather than structural stress events. As long as BTC remains within this band, miner resilience and network confidence tend to hold, and these periods often precede stronger longer-term supply dynamics once price and cost realign.

Top Assets By Market Cap

As of December 3, 2025, Bitcoin’s market capitalization stands at approximately $1.835 trillion, placing it at #8 among the world’s largest assets. This reflects a continued pullback from last month’s $2.127 trillion valuation, when Bitcoin briefly challenged the #7 position above Silver and Amazon. Now sitting below both, BTC has returned to the lower half of the top ten.

The drawdown mirrors the broader consolidation across sound money assets such as gold, silver, and Bitcoin. With Bitcoin now trading around $91,971, market cap has dipped below the $2 trillion level, a threshold that served as a psychological floor throughout much of the past year. Even with the decline, Bitcoin maintains a presence inside the global top ten, which continues to reinforce its legitimacy as a tier-one macro asset.

Silver now holds the #6 position with a market cap of $3.312 trillion, while Amazon sits above Bitcoin at $2.510 trillion. Gold remains the undisputed leader in the store-of-value category, climbing to $29.406 trillion, while equities such as NVIDIA, Apple, and Microsoft continue to dominate the upper ranks despite their own volatility.

The rotation lower for Bitcoin reflects the natural rhythm of a mid-cycle consolidation. Periods like this are not unusual, particularly after strong multi-month performance. While legacy assets such as NVIDIA and Apple are experiencing short-term strength, Bitcoin continues to operate along its own cyclical pathway, building energy within a deeper retracement phase before its next expansion.

Bitcoin’s ability to remain inside the top ten during corrective periods highlights both its resilience and its structural maturity. Holding a trillion-dollar valuation through macro tightening, shifting liquidity conditions, and ongoing volatility demonstrates the asset’s staying power as a global store of value. As long as Bitcoin maintains its current footing, it remains well positioned for the next leg of its cycle once market conditions stabilize.

Bitcoin News

Highlights from the month of November

Steak ’n Shake Launches First-Ever Strategic Bitcoin Reserve

Square Bitcoin Payments Go Live Today, Bringing Bitcoin to Millions of Merchants

Harvard Triples Bitcoin ETF Stake, Makes It Largest Public Holding

Texas Becomes First U.S. State to Buy $5M of BlackRock’s Spot Bitcoin ETF

If you have any suggestions, feel free to reach out to me on X. I’m always looking to improve and add value in ways others might enjoy—just keep it Bitcoin only.

Live free and stack sats,
Will

“Only Bitcoin is the disruptor.” — David Bennett

What is A.W. Block?

We’re a Bitcoin consulting firm helping clients navigate the complexities of the digital asset world with clarity and confidence. Whether it’s recovering lost funds, developing a long-term Bitcoin accumulation strategy, or mastering market cycles through advanced charting education—we’re here to make your crypto journey seamless, secure, and strategic.

If you’re ready to level up your understanding, protect your wealth, or take control of your Bitcoin future, let’s talk.

awblock.io

None of this is financial advice.

Don’t trust, verify.

Let’s dive in.

Subscribe now

Key Technical Terms

EMA (Exponential Moving Average):
A moving average that gives more weight to recent price data, making it react faster to short-term changes in market direction. Traders use EMAs (like the 8 or 34) to gauge momentum, identify pullbacks, and spot early trend shifts.

MA (Moving Average):
A smoothed line showing the average closing price over a chosen period (e.g., 50 or 200 candles). It filters out noise and helps identify the broader trend — whether the market is generally rising, falling, or consolidating.

Candlestick Patterns:
Visual formations created by individual or groups of candlesticks that represent market psychology — showing where buyers or sellers gained control. Examples include:

• Hammer / Shooting Star: Potential reversal signals

• Bullish / Bearish Engulfing: Momentum shift indicators

• Doji: Market indecision

Together, EMAs, MAs, and candlestick patterns give a full picture of trend strength, momentum, and sentiment — essential for understanding where price may go next.

The Technicals

Monthly

Monthly Chart Overview — Closing Price: $109,620.49

Key Monthly Levels:

• M S/R (Upper): ≈ $123K → Recent rejection zone / upper resistance block.

• M S/R (Mid-Zone): $102.4K–$109.4K → Key demand zone / current retest area.

• M S/R (Base): $59K–$74K → Prior resistance turned macro support.

• 8 EMA: ≈ $105K → Immediate dynamic support now under test.

• 34 EMA: ≈ $74K → Mid-trend equilibrium / bullish control line.

• 50 MA: ≈ $55K → Long-term structural trend anchor.

Structure & S/R Zones

October’s monthly candle closed bearish, continuing a series of intermittent red closes within the broader uptrend. Structurally, Bitcoin retraced from the ≈$123K upper resistance and settled back toward the $102.4K–$109.4K mid-zone, aligning closely with an 8 EMA retest.

This behavior aligns with Schabacker’s “change of polarity” principle — a former breakout area now functioning as structural support. Despite the rejection, the macro structure remains intact and bullish, showing a controlled correction following months of impulsive expansion. The sequence of higher highs and higher lows persists, reflecting a standard pause within a maturing bullish cycle rather than the start of reversal distribution.

Candlestick Patterns

The October bar printed a bearish rejection candle with a notable upper shadow, representing supply pressure near the highs.

• Psychology: Buyers lost short-term control near the prior cycle high, prompting profit-taking and mean reversion.

• Confirmation: Close below $105K would have escalated downside pressure, but buyers defended the 8 EMA.

• Interpretation: Nison would frame this as a controlled rejection, signaling equilibrium rather than full reversal momentum.

Chart Patterns

Price action persists inside a rectangle-style re-accumulation between $107K–$125K following an impulsive advance.

• Bias: Continuation pattern within an uptrend.

• Bulkowski guidance: Rectangle continuations break upward a majority of the time.

• Measured move on breakout: ≈ $145K–$150K above $125K.

• Failure condition: A decisive monthly close below $106K opens a path toward $95K; deeper risk is the $72K 34 EMA zone.

Moving Averages

• 8 EMA: ≈ $105K — first clean retest in months; key line for momentum retention.

• 34 EMA: ≈ $74K — rising and well below price, confirming mid-trend strength.

• 50 MA: ≈ $55K — upward slope; long-term structure intact.

Alignment: 8 > 34 > 50 > 200 → bullish stack preserved.
Phase: Consolidation / retracement under resistance, not distribution.

Volume Context

October showed modest volume contraction during the pullback — consistent with a low-conviction retest rather than distribution. The contraction supports a contraction → expansion setup once the range resolves.

Market Psychology

Sentiment cooled from confidence to caution at range highs. The disciplined approach is to treat this as a probabilistic pause inside a strong trend, not to anticipate tops.

“Trading is not about being right or wrong. It’s about managing information and probabilities.” — Mark Douglas

Weekly

Weekly Chart Overview — Closing Price: $110,591.40

Key Weekly Levels:

• W S/R: $19.5 K–$120.2 K → Rejection zone / upper range resistance

• W S/R: $104.3 K–$108.2 K → Active demand zone / mid-range support

• W S/R: $91 K–$94 K → Deep-cycle structural support

• 8 EMA: ≈ $113.3 K → Immediate short-term resistance

• 34 EMA: ≈ $106.7 K → Rising equilibrium / current support zone

• 50 MA: ≈ $103 K → Long-term directional anchor

• 200 MA: ≈ $54.7 K → Macro bull-market foundation

Structure & S/R Zones

Bitcoin continues to range between $106 K and $125 K, with the latest candle closing red but maintaining support above the $108 K–$110 K mid-range block.
This confirms that the rectangular reaccumulation structure remains intact, despite multiple failed breakout attempts above $121 K.

The current behavior represents a sideways digestion phase within a macro uptrend, consistent with Schabacker’s “consolidation plateau” following a strong advance.

Trend Structure

• The sequence of higher lows since April 2025 remains unbroken.

• The 34 EMA continues to rise beneath price, offering dynamic structure.

• Price is compressing between the 8 EMA and 34 EMA, forming a coiling range ahead of the next expansion.

Candlestick Patterns

This week’s candle is a bullish reversal bar.

• The real body takes up a notable portion of the range, which disqualifies it as a spinning top (those require much smaller bodies).

• The long lower shadow signals firm rejection of sub-support pricing, as buyers absorbed intraperiod selling around $106 K–$108 K.

• The short upper wick and moderate close confirm buyer defense and re-entry at structure support.

• In Nison’s taxonomy this fits closest to an umbrella-line / hammer variant, implying a short-term reversal or base confirmation depending on next-week follow-through.

Nison parallel: “When a market probes for weakness and closes near the highs of the session, demand has stepped in to absorb the fear.”

Chart Patterns

Price continues to respect the rectangle reaccumulation formation ($106 K–$125 K).

• Support remains firm at $107 K–$110 K after repeated tests.

• Bulkowski’s data shows rectangles in uptrends break upward ≈ 68 % of the time, and current price action remains consistent with that probability.

• Until breakout confirmation, the range remains a continuation pattern in development with EMAs compressing.

• Measured Move Projection: Break above $125 K → $135 K–$140 K.

Moving Averages

• 8 EMA: ≈ $113.3 K — flattening near resistance; key level for short-term momentum recovery.

• 34 EMA: ≈ $106.7 K — rising and aligning with midrange support; trend equilibrium intact.

• 50 MA: ≈ $103 K — steady upward slope; confirms structural base.

• 200 MA: ≈ $54.7 K — far below price; defines long-term bull-market floor.

Alignment: 8 > 34 > 50 > 200 → bullish stack preserved.
Phase: Sideways consolidation / trend compression within reaccumulation, not distribution.

Volume Context

Weekly volume declined relative to the prior sessions, reflecting the continued contraction typical of a maturing reaccumulation range. The reduction in sell pressure confirms that recent price weakness is being absorbed rather than distributed. The most notable participation remains concentrated around the $106 K–$110 K zone, where prior spikes signaled institutional defense of midrange support. This tapering of volume activity, paired with firm structure retention above the 34 EMA, fits Bulkowski’s continuation criteria, contraction before expansion. In essence, the market is in the quiet phase of compression, preparing for the next directional expansion once the $121 K ceiling gives way.

Market Psychology

Market sentiment is defined by impatience and disbelief as the range drags on.
Douglas notes that this period represents the emotional shift from frustration to readiness:

“The longer a market consolidates, the more powerful the move that follows.” — Mark Douglas

Confidence here means alignment with probabilities, not prediction — patience through range builds edge for the eventual breakout.

Summary & Outlook

Neutral / Range-Bound Reaccumulation (Primary Scenario)

• Conditions: Consolidation $107 K–$121 K with EMA compression.

• Expectation: Sideways to upward bias.

• Invalidation: Weekly close < $106 K (34 EMA).

Bullish Continuation

• Conditions: Weekly close > $121 K–$122 K; breakout confirmation.

• Target: $135 K–$140 K (measured move).

Bearish Scenario (Low Probability)

• Conditions: Breakdown < $106 K with volume expansion.

• Target: $94 K (50 MA) or lower S/R block ($91 K–$94 K).

Bitcoin remains range-bound but structurally strong.
The 34 EMA and $107 K support continue to hold while price compresses beneath $121 K. Momentum tightening between 8 EMA and 34 EMA indicates energy buildup for major expansion.

BTC/USD remains in a neutral-to-bullish reaccumulation phase, with the macro trend unchanged and upside continuation favored on a confirmed close above $121 K.

Daily

Daily Chart Overview — Closing Price: $106,601.07

Key Weekly Levels:

• D S/R: $111K–$112K → failed retest, now resistance.

• M S/R: $106K–$107K → current support and 200MA confluence.

• W S/R: $122K–$125K → upper distribution range.

• 8 EMA: $109.5K

• 34 EMA: $112.8K

• 50 MA: $113.7K

• 200 MA: $109.8K

Structure & S/R Zones

Bitcoin has rejected cleanly from the $111K–$112K daily zone — a decisive failure at prior structure resistance that now reaffirms distribution behavior.
Today’s breakdown candle pushed back into the $106K–$107K monthly base, aligning with the 200-day MA, suggesting the market is once again testing cycle support.

This confirms a continuation of the lower-high, lower-low sequence, with structural pressure shifting back to sellers. The rejection from the 34EMA / 50MA zone indicates a failure of short-term bullish momentum and a resumption of corrective structure within the larger $106K–$122K rectangle.

Candlestick Patterns

Today’s session printed a wide-bodied bearish candle, engulfing the prior two sessions’ range — a classic bearish engulfing pattern that confirms renewed downside intent.

• Psychology: Buyers were unable to defend the short-term 8EMA zone, capitulating under renewed sell volume.

• Pattern classification: Reversal confirmation at resistance (Nison) — particularly potent after a failed retest.

• Confirmation: Daily close below $106K opens risk to full range extension lower.

• Invalidation: Recovery above $111K with volume expansion.

This mirrors Nison’s description of “confirmation by bearish follow-through at resistance after a short-lived rebound.”

Chart Patterns

The broader rectangle structure ($106K–$122K) remains intact, but current movement reflects a mid-range failure pattern.

• Bulkowski statistics: Bearish breakouts from rectangles occur ≈46% of the time but often accelerate after multiple failed upper retests.

• Measured projection: Breakdown below $106K projects ≈$99K — aligning with prior mid-summer accumulation.

• Failure condition: Strong reversal close >$112K (neutralizes downside projection).

Moving Averages

• 8 EMA: $109.5K — rolling over beneath 34EMA → bearish momentum signal.

• 34 EMA: $112.8K — declining; aligns with resistance.

• 50 MA: $113.7K — flat-to-down; confirms medium-term weakness.

• 200 MA: $109.8K — rising, currently being tested as support.

Volume Context

Volume expanded notably on the breakdown, confirming participation-driven selling pressure. The reaction is not isolated; rather, it reflects broader market distribution since the October peak near $125K.

• The rising red volume bar suggests supply dominance.

• The move invalidates prior low-volume rebound attempts from $107K–$108K.

This validates Bulkowski’s “expansion after contraction” behavior — with volatility and volume rising together as direction asserts itself.

Market Psychology

Market sentiment has transitioned from cautious optimism back to defensive disbelief. The rejection from mid-range has reinforced traders’ hesitation, leading to renewed risk aversion near the 200MA.

“The market doesn’t punish you for being wrong; it punishes you for staying wrong.” — Mark Douglas

A disciplined participant accepts the reemergence of downside probability and avoids anchoring to recent bullish bias. Emotional attachment to “the base holding” creates vulnerability when structural evidence points otherwise.

Summary & Outlook

Bullish Continuation (Low Probability)

• Conditions: Immediate defense and reclaim of $111K.

• Target: $115K–$118K (EMA cluster).

• Invalidation: Daily close below $106K.

Neutral / Retest Scenario

• Conditions: Holding within $106K–$107K band.

• Expectation: Temporary stabilization near 200MA; limited upside until $111K reclaimed.

Bearish Scenario (Primary)

• Conditions: Close below $106K.

• Target: $99K–$101K measured projection.

• Confirmation: Volume expansion on breakdown.

Bitcoin’s daily chart has transitioned back into a defensive posture, rejecting cleanly from the mid-range and 34EMA resistance cluster. The wide-bodied bearish candle, aligned with volume expansion, reinforces supply control. The 200MA remains the final structural support — its defense or failure will determine whether this corrective phase evolves into a full distribution breakdown toward $99K or stabilizes into base consolidation once more.

Bitcoin / Gold

I’m adding this section to the newsletter because Bitcoin and gold represent two forms of sound money separated by time and technology. Gold anchored the physical age of value, while Bitcoin anchors the digital one. Both are scarce, both exist outside the control of governments, and both challenge fiat systems built on trust and debt. Comparing them isn’t about picking sides, it’s about understanding how the concept of sound money is evolving from what was once mined from the earth to what is now mined from energy and time.

This section will focus primarily on technical analysis, similar to the charts above, but I’ll include any additional insights, notable developments, and/or possibly educational tidbits as they come up.

Monthly

Bitcoin’s relative performance against gold remains structurally bullish over the 2020–2025 horizon, though momentum has shifted toward gold recently. The 25–26 support area represents the cycle’s equilibrium point where dominance could rotate again. Sustained stability above this zone will reinforce Bitcoin’s broader leadership narrative into 2026.

Bitcoin improves on gold by perfecting its monetary properties. It matches gold’s scarcity but adds portability, divisibility, and verifiability. You can send any amount across the world in minutes, audit the total supply instantly, and store it without trusted custodians. Bitcoin is sound money built for a digital economy.

The Fundamentals

Hashrate

Bitcoin’s hashrate has once again set a new all-time high, now reaching 1.08 billion TH/s, up 1.6% from last month’s record. The network’s steady climb continues to underscore miner confidence, with no visible signs of slowdown despite tightening profitability and increased production costs.

This ongoing expansion, even as the market consolidates, reinforces the long-term health of the network. The April halving’s impact has been fully absorbed, and miners continue to deploy capital into more efficient rigs and renewable energy sources. Operations powered by hydro, nuclear, and flare gas remain particularly strong, helping maintain hashrate growth without major cost disruptions.

Historically, sustained hashrate growth during price pullbacks has been a bullish structural signal. It reflects miners’ conviction in Bitcoin’s future value — a belief strong enough to keep investing even when short-term margins compress.

The protocol’s energy loop remains firmly intact: energy → security → trust → demand → price → reinvestment. Each upward step in hashrate deepens Bitcoin’s security moat, reinforcing its role as the world’s most secure and decentralized financial network.

Miner behavior suggests continued faith in the cycle ahead. While price action has cooled, conviction hasn’t — hashrate follows belief, and belief is still climbing.

Average Mining Cost

As of November 2, 2025, the average cost to mine one Bitcoin is estimated at $113,676, only a slight decrease from last month’s $114,600. With Bitcoin currently trading around $106,430 (as of November 4), the mining cost-to-price ratio has climbed to 1.03, while the 30-day moving average of the ratio remains steady at 0.97.

This marks the first time in several months that the estimated production cost has exceeded the spot price, creating short-term margin compression for miners. When mining costs run higher than market value, weaker operators often face increased financial strain, while more efficient firms continue accumulating hashpower and market share.

The elevated cost structure reflects persistently high network difficulty and energy input costs, even as hashrate continues to trend near all-time highs. Despite tighter margins, there are no visible signs of miner capitulation — block production remains stable, and the network’s total hashpower has not meaningfully declined.

Historically, periods where price dips below average production cost tend to mark cyclical equilibrium points rather than long-term stress events. As long as Bitcoin remains within this range, miner resilience and network confidence continue to hold.

Top Assets By Market Cap

As of November 3, 2025, Bitcoin’s market capitalization stands at approximately $2.127 trillion, placing it at #8 among the world’s largest assets. This marks a slight pullback from last month’s $2.505 trillion valuation, where Bitcoin briefly climbed to the #7 spot above Silver and Amazon.

The recent dip reflects a period of consolidation following months of strong performance across sound money assets like gold, silver, and Bitcoin. With Bitcoin now trading around $106,582, its market cap remains firmly above the $2 trillion threshold — a level that continues to act as a psychological and structural foundation in this cycle.

Despite the ranking shift, Bitcoin’s long-term dominance and resilience remain clear. The asset’s ability to sustain a trillion-dollar valuation through both macro tightening and price corrections underscores its maturity as a global store of value. Gold continues to lead at $27.7T, but Bitcoin’s presence among the top ten reaffirms its place as the leading digital counterpart in the broader store-of-value landscape.

As traditional equities like NVIDIA and Apple jockey for short-term leadership, Bitcoin’s cyclical rhythm persists — building quietly through consolidation phases before its next expansion. For now, holding above this $2T base keeps Bitcoin well-positioned for strength into the next phase of the cycle.

Bitcoin News

Highlights from the month of October

Morgan Stanley Advises Up to 4% Bitcoin Allocation in Portfolios

Morgan Stanley Opens Bitcoin And Crypto Fund Access to All Wealth Clients

Trump Pardons Binance Founder Changpeng Zhao

JPMorgan to Accept Bitcoin as Loan Collateral by YearEnd

Steak ’n Shake Launches First-Ever Strategic Bitcoin Reserve

TL;DR

Bitcoin remains in a strong mid-cycle consolidation, trading between $106K and $125K after a controlled pullback from its highs. The 8 EMA and 34 EMA continue to act as dynamic support, confirming structural strength within the broader bullish trend. Momentum is compressing, but all signals point to reaccumulation rather than distribution — a setup that historically precedes expansion. A confirmed breakout above $121K–$125K would likely target $135K–$150K, while holding above $106K keeps the macro trend firmly intact.

If you have any suggestions, feel free to reach out to me on X. I’m always looking to improve and add value in ways others might enjoy—just keep it Bitcoin only.

Live free and stack sats,
Will

“As the world is crashing, bitcoin keeps hashing.” - Lt. Col. Steve

What is A.W. Block?

We’re a Bitcoin consulting firm helping clients navigate the complexities of the digital asset world with clarity and confidence. Whether it’s recovering lost funds, developing a long-term Bitcoin accumulation strategy, or mastering market cycles through advanced charting education—we’re here to make your crypto journey seamless, secure, and strategic.

If you’re ready to level up your understanding, protect your wealth, or take control of your Bitcoin future, let’s talk.

awblock.io

Don’t trust, verify.

Let’s dive in.

Subscribe now

Key Technical Terms

EMA (Exponential Moving Average):
A moving average that gives more weight to recent price data, making it react faster to short-term changes in market direction. Traders use EMAs (like the 8 or 34) to gauge momentum, identify pullbacks, and spot early trend shifts.

MA (Moving Average):
A smoothed line showing the average closing price over a chosen period (e.g., 50 or 200 candles). It filters out noise and helps identify the broader trend — whether the market is generally rising, falling, or consolidating.

Candlestick Patterns:
Visual formations created by individual or groups of candlesticks that represent market psychology — showing where buyers or sellers gained control. Examples include:

• Hammer / Shooting Star: Potential reversal signals

• Bullish / Bearish Engulfing: Momentum shift indicators

• Doji: Market indecision

Together, EMAs, MAs, and candlestick patterns give a full picture of trend strength, momentum, and sentiment — essential for understanding where price may go next.

The Technicals

Monthly

Monthly Chart Overview — Closing Price: ~$114,037

Key Monthly Levels:

• $59,000–$74,000 (M S/R) – Major reclaimed macro zone from the previous cycle top.

• $102,500–$109,500 – Current consolidation/resistance zone.

• 8 EMA (Yellow) – ~$103,400 → Acting as dynamic support.

• 34 EMA (Green) – ~$71,591 → Medium-term trend support.

• 50 MA (Orange) – ~$53,486 → Long-term structural anchor.

Structure & S/R Zones

Bitcoin has cleanly broken above the previous all-time high near $69K and is now trading within a broader monthly resistance band between ~$102K and ~$118K. This zone is showing signs of congestion, with multiple candles rejecting the upper boundary.

Meanwhile, the prior cycle top around $60K–$72K has flipped into support, forming a textbook Schabacker-style “change of polarity” — resistance turned support.

The macro trend remains bullish, defined by higher highs and higher lows. However, the last few candles suggest momentum is cooling, with smaller bodies and longer wicks developing near resistance. This type of price action often precedes either a breakout or a broader pause before continuation.

Candlestick Patterns

Recent price action forms a Three-Candle Consolidation Sequence:

• One strong impulsive green candle,

• Followed by two small-bodied candles within its upper range.

This is consistent with the “Rising Three Methods” bullish continuation pattern. A breakout and close above $118K would validate this setup. On the flip side, if price stalls further and rolls over, the sequence could evolve into a High Base or Evening Doji Star, hinting at a local top — confirmation would require a close below the 8 EMA (~$107K).

Chart Patterns

The current consolidation resembles an Ascending Range sitting at major resistance — a pattern that often resolves upward in strong trends, but can be vulnerable to false breakouts when volume dries up.

According to Bulkowski’s stats, High Base or Rectangle Top formations break upward about 68% of the time in bull markets — but fail 32%, particularly when accompanied by volume divergence.

So far, volume is contracting, suggesting low breakout energy unless renewed participation steps in.

Moving Averages

• 8 EMA (Yellow): Dynamic support at ~$103.5K. Holding this keeps BTC in “acceleration mode.”

• 34 EMA (Green): Medium-trend mean at ~$71.5K. Dips here remain structurally bullish.

• 50 MA (Orange): Deep macro anchor at ~$58K. This is the “line of defense” if broader weakness sets in.

All moving averages are bullishly stacked (8 > 34 > 50) — a strong trend confirmation in any market.

Volume Context

Volume peaked during the breakout in November 2024 and has since declined, a typical sign of consolidation rather than distribution. This is in line with Bulkowski’s observation: low-volume consolidations at highs often precede breakout continuation — as long as key support zones hold.

Market Psychology

Right now, sentiment is balanced between greed and disbelief. Many market participants remain anchored to the memory of the $69K top in 2021 — hesitant to accept new highs.

This aligns with Mark Douglas’ view:

“Confidence is the absence of fear. The trader who trusts the trend does not interpret consolidation as threat.”

As long as Bitcoin holds above the 8 EMA, bulls maintain structural control. Any retest of the $102K–$107K zone may serve as a launchpad, barring a breakdown on volume.

Weekly

Key Weekly Levels:

• $119,000–$120,000 (W S/R – Upper Zone):
  Recently broken resistance now acting as short-term supply during retest.

• $104,000–$108,000 (W S/R – Mid-Zone):
  Former resistance now confirmed as support — a textbook Schabacker “change of polarity.”

• $91,000–$94,000 (W S/R – Lower Zone)

• 8 EMA (Yellow): ≈ $115,662 — Short-term dynamic support, often used for acceleration.

• 34 EMA (Green): ≈ $105,355 — Mid-trend mean, still rising.

• 50 MA (Orange): ≈ $100,068 — Long-cycle anchor, untouched since early Q2 2025.

Structure and S/R Zones

Macro Context:
Bitcoin has broken cleanly above its multi-month consolidation range ($107K–$121K). The breakout is confirmed by a strong impulsive candle that closed well above resistance, reasserting the dominant uptrend.

Trend Structure:
Higher highs and higher lows remain intact. The 8 EMA provided launchpad support for this leg, while the $107K–$110K zone successfully flipped to support, validating bullish market structure.

Candlestick Patterns

The current breakout candle is a strong green Marubozu-style bar — opening near the low and closing near the high — indicating full control by buyers.

Preceding this move was a potential Three Line Strike setup: three small corrective red candles followed by one powerful green breakout.
Per Nison, this is a high-probability continuation pattern when confirmed by strong volume, which we see in this case.

Chart Patterns

Between May and September 2025, BTC formed a clear rectangle consolidation with ~$107K support and ~$121K resistance.

Now that price has broken above the range, the breakout appears valid.

Bulkowski stats: Rectangle tops in uptrends break higher ~68% of the time, with measured moves equal to the height of the pattern (~$14K).

Projected target: $135K–$140K
(This aligns with the macro monthly outlook.)

Trend and Moving Averages

• 8 EMA (≈ $115K): Rising steeply, holding as dynamic support

• 34 EMA (≈ $105K): Mid-trend guide, confirming sustained strength

• 50 MA (≈ $100K): Long-term structural support untouched for months

• 200 MA (≈ $53.5K): Deep cycle base — still rising, though unlikely to be revisited unless a major macro shift occurs

All moving averages are bullishly aligned (8 > 34 > 50 > 200), reinforcing an acceleration phase in the current trend.

Volume Profile

The breakout candle registered the highest bullish volume since August 2025.
This follows several weeks of contraction — a classic “quiet before the move” setup.

No major signs of distribution are present. Buyer dominance is clear.

Sentiment & Market Psychology

The market is moving from skepticism to acceptance.
Breaking above $121K, a key psychological ceiling, has removed doubt for many traders and is pulling sidelined participants back into the trend.

“Consistency arises from thinking in probabilities, not predictions.”
— Mark Douglas

Traders acting on structure and trend — not emotion — are being rewarded. As confidence builds, bearish pressure turns into short-covering fuel.

Daily

Key Levels:

• D S/R (Teal): ~$123,100 – $123,700 → Freshly broken daily resistance, now testing as potential new support.

• D S/R: $117,000 – $117,500 → Prior congestion / breakout trigger zone.

• D S/R: $106,100 – $108,200 → Old base

• 8 EMA (Yellow): ≈ $120,827 → Short-term dynamic support.

• 34 EMA (Green): ≈ $116,065 → Intermediate trend control.

• 50 MA (Orange): ≈ $114,050 → Medium-term structural guide.

• 200 MA (Blue): ≈ $105,921 → Long-term directional bias line.

Structure & S/R Zones

Context:
BTC has broken out from a multi-month compression range bounded by $118 K – $124 K, confirming a shift from mid-cycle consolidation to trend expansion.
The breakout candle has closed above the upper D S/R zone with strong body follow-through.

Trend Structure:
Sequence of higher lows since mid-September.
Price is now in acceleration mode, distancing from the 8 EMA.
Nearest support rests at the breakout retest zone (~$123,100 – $123,700).

Candlestick Patterns

The current breakout candle is a large bullish Marubozu, closing at the highs → clear confirmation of momentum.
The prior four-bar structure shows a Morning Star-type reversal cluster that formed at the $111 K support (August 30 – Sept 10).
Nison classifies this as a major continuation/reversal hybrid depending on volume — here it triggered continuation, validating renewed bullish control.

Chart Patterns

Pattern development from August through early October formed a rounded base / inverted head-and-shoulders style structure.

• Left shoulder: $118 K rejection (Aug)

• Head: $107 K low (Sept)

• Right shoulder: $111 K rebound (late Sept)

• Neckline: ≈ $118 K

Breakout above neckline → pattern target = height (~$11 K) → projection: $129 K – $130 K.
Bulkowski stats: inverted H&S breakouts succeed ~72 % in uptrends with average +20 % move; fits ongoing momentum profile.

Moving Averages / Trend

• 8 EMA (≈ $120,827): Rising sharply, acting as immediate dynamic support and confirming short-term trend acceleration.

• 34 EMA (≈ $116,065): Mid-trend guide; steady upward slope indicates sustained market strength.

• 50 MA (≈ $114,050): Medium-term structural support aligning with prior breakout zone; trend foundation remains firm.

• 200 MA (≈ $105,921): Deep cycle base—still ascending, unlikely to be tested unless a broad macro correction develops.

All moving averages are bullishly aligned (8 > 34 > 50 > 200), reinforcing an acceleration phase within the ongoing uptrend.

Volume Analysis

Volume expanded significantly on the breakout candle—highest since mid-July.
This validates the move as institutionally confirmed rather than short-covering.
Volume during the base was contracting, meeting Bulkowski’s continuation criteria: contraction → expansion = valid breakout.

Psychological & Probabilistic Context

Market sentiment has transitioned from hesitation to conviction.
Traders previously anchored to the $118 K resistance are now chasing higher entries.

“The consistency you seek is in your mind, not the market.” — Mark Douglas
Confidence, not prediction, defines success here; staying aligned with the 8 EMA bias keeps focus on probabilities, not fear of reversal.

Summary & Outlook

Bullish Continuation (Primary):

• Conditions: Daily closes above $124K; maintain 8 EMA support.

• Target: $129K – $130K (initial); extended to $135K – $140K if confirmed by weekly continuation.

• Invalidation: Break and close below $124K with heavy volume.

Neutral Retest Scenario:

• Conditions: Controlled pullback to $123,100 – $123,700 on declining volume.

• Expectation: Constructive retest forming a higher low before the next leg up.

Bearish Scenario (Low Probability)

• Conditions: Daily close below $116,065 (beneath 34 EMA).

• Target: Deeper retrace toward $114,050 (50 MA) or ~$107K structural support.

Bitcoin on the daily timeframe has completed a neckline breakout from a multi-week accumulation range. Price action, volume, and EMA alignment collectively reinforce a bullish continuation phase toward $129 K – $130 K. Maintaining closes above the 8 EMA (~$120,827) preserves trend momentum; a retest of the breakout zone ($123,100 – $123,700) would likely act as a launchpad rather than a reversal.

The Fundamentals

Hashrate

Bitcoin’s hashrate continues its steady climb, setting a new all-time high of 1.12 billion TH/s, up 5.8% from last month. The network shows no signs of slowing down, with higher lows and consistent growth across 2025, reflecting rising miner conviction and continued infrastructure investment globally.

This expansion comes during a period of price consolidation, which is historically a powerful signal. Miners aren’t backing off — they’re scaling up. The 8% reward reduction from April’s halving has been absorbed, and energy-efficient operations, particularly those backed by hydro and flare gas, are taking the lead.

Hashrate strength like this reinforces network security and miner confidence, especially in the mid-cycle phase. The protocol’s energy loop remains intact: energy → security → trust → demand → price → reinvestment.

Miners are clearly pricing in a bullish future. The hashrate is rising ahead of price — just as it has in every prior cycle.

“Hashrate follows belief — and belief is back near all-time highs.”

Average Mining Cost

As of October 4, 2025, the average cost to mine one Bitcoin has climbed to $110,115, a sharp increase from $95,368 just one month ago. With Bitcoin trading around $126,081 (as of October 6), the mining cost-to-price ratio has risen to 0.90, and the 30-day moving average holds steady at 0.90 as well.

The rising cost reflects shifting dynamics across the network. Increasing hash rate, difficulty adjustments, and potentially higher input costs are all contributing to this lift. The margin between mining cost and price is still positive, but much tighter than last month when the ratio sat at 0.86. This compression suggests miners are operating with less room for error, particularly those with less efficient operations.

Still, no major signs of stress have emerged. Hash rate remains strong, and the price continues to trend upward. As long as this balance holds, the network remains in healthy territory. If price weakens or input costs rise further, margin pressure could increase for higher-cost operators.

For now, miner conviction appears intact. Rising costs are being met with rising price, maintaining stability in the broader mining economy.

Top Assets By Market Cap

As of October 6, 2025, Bitcoin’s market capitalization has rebounded to approximately $2.505 trillion, securing the #7 position among the world’s largest assets. This marks a strong recovery from last month, when BTC sat at #8 with a market cap of $2.188 trillion.

The climb back above Silver and Amazon reflects both Bitcoin’s recent price strength and its ability to reclaim lost ground amid broader macro and equity market turbulence. At a trading price of roughly $125,709, Bitcoin has reasserted its dominance as a tier-one global asset, continuing to hold its place firmly in the elite $2T+ club.

Its year-long resilience in this upper echelon is more than symbolic. It reinforces Bitcoin’s evolving role as a credible store of value among legacy giants like Gold, Apple, and Microsoft. With market cap expansion aligning with bullish technicals, Bitcoin’s renewed momentum positions it for continued upward repricing in the global capital stack.

Bitcoin News

Highlights from the month of September

Federal Reserve Cuts Interest Rates by 25 Basis Points; Bitcoin Climbs Above $116,000

BTC Inc. and Strategy Agree to Five-Year Strategic Partnership Renewal Extending Bitcoin for Corporations Initiative

TL;DR

Bitcoin is in the most historically bullish phase of its cycle. That also means we are likely closer to the top than the bottom, at least in terms of timing. But before any major cooling off, price action still points higher. To the moon!

I just want to take a second and thank those who are sticking around and giving feedback. As you can see there have been slight changes throughout the newsletters thus far but I feel like we’re narrowing it down to what this newsletter should be.

If you have any suggestions, feel free to reach out to me on X. I’m always looking to improve and add value in ways others might enjoy—just keep it Bitcoin only.

Live free and stack sats,
Will

”Bitcoin isn’t about getting your money out of your country. It’s about getting your country out of your money.” - Farbood

What is A.W. Block?

We’re a Bitcoin consulting firm helping clients navigate the complexities of the digital asset world with clarity and confidence. Whether it’s recovering lost funds, developing a long-term Bitcoin accumulation strategy, or mastering market cycles through advanced charting education—we’re here to make your crypto journey seamless, secure, and strategic.

If you’re ready to level up your understanding, protect your wealth, or take control of your Bitcoin future, let’s talk.

awblock.io

As always, we’ll break down the key levels, moving averages, volume structure, and broader market context. No altcoin distractions. No hype. Just Bitcoin.

None of this is financial advice.

Don’t trust, verify.

Let’s dive in.

Subscribe now

Technicals

Monthly

Bitcoin continues to consolidate just above the $102,000 to $110,000 breakout zone, which acted as key resistance earlier in the year and is now being retested as support. The last two monthly candles have printed smaller bodies near the highs, suggesting a pause following strong expansion. Structurally, the long-term trend remains intact with a clear pattern of higher highs and higher lows. This still looks like healthy consolidation within an uptrend, not the start of a breakdown.

Key monthly support levels include the $102K–$110K breakout zone and the broader $58K–$73K area, which aligns with the former all-time high cluster and long-term demand. July and August both produced strong breakout candles above $110,000, and the recent slowing momentum fits well with Schabacker’s concept of “congestion at resistance”—a common setup that often resolves higher if support continues to hold.

From a moving average standpoint, the 8 EMA (yellow) is rising steeply and providing dynamic support just beneath price. The 34 EMA (green) is also trending upward, reinforcing medium-term momentum, while the 50 MA (orange) sits well below current levels, offering deep structural support as it continues to rise.

Volume has steadily declined throughout the past three months of consolidation. This kind of lower volume is typical of trend pauses and does not signal distribution. Without any major spikes in selling pressure, the broader environment continues to lean toward bullish continuation, provided key support levels are respected.

Weekly

Bitcoin has pulled back from the recent ~$124,000 high and is now sitting right on top of the $104,000 to $108,000 weekly support zone. This area has been structurally important since 2024 and is shaping up to be the line in the sand. Holding this zone keeps the breakout structure intact, but losing it would open the door to a deeper retracement. The past three weekly candles have all closed red, signaling short-term corrective pressure following Bitcoin’s attempt at price discovery. Still, the move appears controlled and not indicative of a breakdown just yet.

Recent candles have shown upper wicks near $120,000, confirming that sellers have been active at that level. This week’s candle is printing with a longer lower wick, suggesting some defense by buyers around $110,000. If this closes as a hammer or similar reversal pattern, it could mark a short-term base at support. A close below $104,000, however, would confirm a structural breakdown and likely send price toward the next major demand zone between $90,000 and $94,000.

From a trend perspective, the 8 EMA (yellow) now sits just above price and is acting as short-term resistance. The 34 EMA (green) is still rising and sits near $102,000, which would be the next level to watch for a bounce if support breaks. The 50 MA (orange) is further below, near $96,000, aligning with broader structural demand.

Volume has picked up slightly during the pullback, but there has been no major distribution spike or sign of capitulation. This still looks like a controlled correction rather than panic-driven selling. As long as Bitcoin holds above the $104,000 to $108,000 zone, the broader bullish structure remains valid.

Daily

Bitcoin continues to struggle following the rejection near $124,000. The short-term structure remains bearish, with recent daily candles forming lower highs and lower lows, keeping the local downtrend intact. Price is effectively range-bound between $109,000 support and $112,000 resistance, and there has yet to be a strong catalyst to break either side.

Key daily levels to watch include the ≈$124,000 rejection zone at the range high, ≈$116,000 midrange resistance, and the ≈$112,000 zone, which continues to act as short-term rejection. Immediate support lies around $108,000, while deeper demand sits between $101,000 and $102,000—an area that also aligns with the 200-day moving average.

Recent candlesticks have printed long upper wicks, showing sellers are actively defending the $112,000 area. There is no bullish reversal pattern yet, meaning buyers are defending the level, but bears still control the momentum.

Moving averages are reflecting this loss of strength. The 8 EMA (yellow) is acting as near-term resistance, with price rejecting cleanly from it. The 34 EMA (green) has flattened, signaling a loss of momentum, while the 50 MA (orange) is now overhead, reinforcing resistance. The 200 MA (blue) continues to trend upward around $101,000, offering strong structural support should $109,000 break.

Volume has picked up during recent drops, though there has been no blow-off selling or panic. The current structure looks more like controlled distribution rather than capitulation. As it stands, the daily chart shows short-term weakness. Price remains capped below $112,000 and is holding just above $109,000 support. A break below $109,000 on strong volume would likely send price toward the $101,000 to $102,000 range. On the flip side, reclaiming $112,000 would be the first sign of strength and could shift momentum back toward $115,000 or higher. Until then, the structure favors the bears, and I’ll be watching closely for signs of a change in trend.

Fundamentals

Hashrate

Bitcoin’s hash rate has reached a new all-time high of 1.058 billion TH/s, rising 8.10 percent from last month. The network continues its strong upward trend, building on last month’s breakout above the 980 million mark. Higher lows and steady growth remain the theme, reflecting growing miner confidence and ongoing global investment in mining infrastructure.

This kind of hash rate expansion during a period of price consolidation is a powerful signal. It shows the protocol is becoming more secure and that miners are leaning in, not backing off. No signs of capitulation. Miners are scaling with conviction.

AVG Mining Cost

As of September 2, 2025, the average cost to mine one Bitcoin is approximately $95,368, down modestly from last month’s $99,208 estimate. With Bitcoin currently trading around $110,000, the mining cost-to-price ratio stands at 0.86, while the 30-day moving average ratio sits slightly lower at 0.83.

This slight decline in mining cost may reflect short-term shifts in network efficiency or regional energy adjustments, even as hash rate climbs. Profit margins remain healthy, but the rising ratio signals that miners are operating closer to breakeven than in prior months. If price weakens or energy input costs rise again, pressure may return for higher-cost operators.

Market Cap

As of September 4, 2025, Bitcoin’s market cap sits at $2.188 trillion, placing it at #8 among the world’s largest assets. It now ranks below Silver and Amazon, having slipped two spots from last month’s position at #6.

The drop reflects both a broader pullback in Bitcoin’s price and strong relative performance from other mega-cap assets. Still, Bitcoin continues to hold above the $2 trillion threshold, a level that represents more than just psychological support. This kind of resilience signals that institutional interest and long-term conviction remain intact, even in the face of near-term volatility.

Holding ground here keeps Bitcoin firmly in the conversation with the world’s most valuable assets.

Bitcoin News

Highlights from the month of August

Historic First: U.S. Government Posts GDP Data on Bitcoin Blockchain

If you have any suggestions, feel free to reach out to me on X. I’m always looking to improve and add value in ways others might enjoy—just keep it Bitcoin only.

Live free and stack sats,
Will

”Money, historically, has been a creature of the market, not a creature of the State. If anything, that is the perversion.” - Murad Mahmudov

Another month in the books, and Bitcoin continues to do what it does best—shake out the weak hands and reward those with conviction. Whether you’re watching key levels on the daily or just checking the monthly for long-term structure, this issue is built to keep you grounded in the signal, not the noise.

We’ll cover the charts, the hash rate, macro market context, and what I’m watching next. As always, no altcoin hype, no fluff—just the meat and potatoes of Bitcoin.

None of this is financial advice.

Don’t trust, verify.

Let’s dive in.

Note: I usually include a color key for my charts. I’ve updated some colors recently and haven’t gotten around to rebuilding the full legend yet. That said, all EMA and MA colors remain unchanged. A few new tools and S/R zones have been added, but everything should still be easy to follow since each chart is tied directly to its corresponding timeframe analysis.

The Technicals

Monthly

Bitcoin is doing its thing with another monthly close that marks the highest in its history, yet everyone on the X timeline seems bearish—why? We haven’t even retested the 8EMA on the monthly chart. Bitcoin has now closed three consecutive monthly candles above the prior all-time high resistance zone. Price remains above the key breakout region between $102,000 and $110,000, which it's now testing from above.

June gave us a strong bullish expansion candle, while July followed with a small-bodied continuation candle that confirmed support above the breakout. The 8EMA, 34EMA, and 50MA are all bullishly stacked, with the 8EMA (yellow) currently acting as dynamic monthly support. Price remains well above all key moving averages, keeping the macro trend fully intact.

Volume has been declining for four consecutive months. While this isn’t a bearish divergence by itself, it does suggest a lack of strong conviction. When you pair lower volume with tight consolidation, it often signals a pause before the next leg up.

Weekly

Bitcoin is pulling back after repeated rejections near $122,000, forming what could be a local top. Price is currently resting cleanly on the $114K–$116K breakout support zone, with secondary support below at $104K–$109K. The structure remains intact, with no signs of breakdown. Recent candles show consolidation, and price continues to ride the 8EMA, a typical feature of strong bullish trends.

The moving averages are in full bullish alignment, and momentum remains upward with no weakness in slope or crossovers. Volume has cooled slightly, but there are no signs of distribution or exhaustion. A weekly close above $122K could trigger the next leg higher. Overall, the trend remains healthy.

Daily

Bitcoin is currently trading below the key $115,800 resistance level after a sharp rejection from the ~$120,000 range highs. Price found support near the daily S/R zone around $112,000, which sparked a relief bounce—but that bounce is now stalling at prior support, which has flipped into resistance. This setup hints at a possible bearish S/R flip.

Key levels to watch:

• ~$120K: Range high and local resistance

• ~$115.8K: Former support, now resistance

• ~$112K: Current bounce support zone

• ~$107K–$108K: Strong daily demand below

Price action remains range-bound and is now testing the underside of broken support. So far, no strong bullish reversal patterns have emerged. The current candle is printing just below resistance with a small real body, showing buyer hesitation and the potential for rejection.

Structurally, Bitcoin remains in a corrective phase with lower highs and lower closes developing over recent sessions. The initial bounce from ~$112K was backed by heavy volume, showing short-term interest, but the current push higher is occurring on declining volume, which weakens its credibility.

The EMAs and MAs are showing early signs of shifting:

• 8 EMA (yellow) is turning down and acting as intraday resistance

• 34 EMA (green) is flattening, pointing to a loss of upward momentum

• 50 MA (orange) is still rising and sits not far below price, offering dynamic support near $112,000

Overall, bulls need to reclaim $115.8K with strength to regain control. Otherwise, the risk of further downside remains on the table.

The Fundamentals

Hashrate

Bitcoin’s hash rate continues to trend higher, now sitting at 980.74M TH/s — a 10.88% increase from last month. This rise reflects renewed miner confidence and sustained investment in infrastructure despite recent price consolidation. The chart shows consistent higher lows and a strong recovery from the June dip, suggesting that network security and decentralization remain on solid footing.

Hash rate strength like this, especially while price consolidates, reinforces the long-term health of the protocol. There are no signs of miner capitulation. If anything, it looks like they’re doubling down.

AVG Mining Cost

As of July 30, 2025, the average cost to mine one Bitcoin is approximately $99,208.77, marking a sharp increase of over $11,000 from last month’s estimate. With Bitcoin currently trading around $117,831, the mining cost-to-price ratio sits at 0.84, while the 30-day moving average of the ratio is slightly lower at 0.79.

This uptick in mining costs reflects rising hash rate competition and possibly higher energy expenditures across the network. While margins remain profitable, they’re tightening. Continued increases in operational costs may start to put pressure on less efficient miners if price fails to expand further.

Market Cap

As of August 4, 2025, Bitcoin’s market cap is sitting at $2.283 trillion, up 6.2% from last month’s $2.149 trillion figure. It now ranks #6 among the world’s largest assets, narrowly behind Alphabet and above Amazon, Silver, Meta, and Saudi Aramco.

Bitcoin continues to hold its ground above the $2 trillion threshold, signaling sustained strength and institutional interest despite short-term market chop. Holding this level while climbing the global leaderboard isn’t just optics—it’s fundamental validation in real time.

Bitcoin News

Trump Signs GENIUS Act Into Law, Will Make America “The Crypto Capital of the World”

PayPal Opens Bitcoin And Crypto Payments to US Merchants

Crypto ETFs See Recor $12.8B Inflows In July as Market Rallies to New Highs

Crypto market absorbs $9bn bitcoin sale with ‘barely a blip’

Treasury Secretary Bessent Remarks at the Launch of the White House Digital Assets Report

If you have any suggestions, feel free to reach out to me on X. I’m always looking to improve and add value in ways others might enjoy—just keep it Bitcoin only.

Live free and stack sats,
Will

“Building a portfolio around shitcoins is just a shitfolio.” - Saifedean Ammous