Post

I read JPMorgan's report and agree with 70%, but I firmly disagree with 30%. On September 1st, JPMorgan's trading desk officially shifted to a "tactically cautious" stance, advising investors to reduce net long exposure and move toward a "market neutral" strategy. What are the reasons? Uncertainty in Federal Reserve policy, unclear positioning signals, and September itself is a seasonally high-volatility month for U.S. stocks. Once the report came out, the group chat exploded. Many people asked me: "Is it time to liquidate?" "JPMorgan is bearish, is BTC going to drop back to 60,000?" My answer is simple: I read it, agree with 70%, but firmly disagree with 30%. The points JPMorgan made are indeed correct: First, September is a seasonally high-volatility month. Historical data is clear—September has never been calm for risk assets. Second, uncertainty in Fed policy truly exists. After Waller's hawkish speech on August 31, the probability of a rate hike in September jumped from 35% to over 60%. CME FedWatch shows the probability of a 25 basis point hike in September has reached 65.4%. Who can say for sure? Third, positioning signals are indeed ambiguous. In August, Bitcoin shorts were squeezed out by $6.55 billion, but spot demand is weakening. Binance's funding rate rose 42% in less than a week—longs are levering up, but new buying can't keep pace. Open interest is falling, funding rates are rising. This is definitely not a "blindly go long" signal. I acknowledge these logics. Who is JPMorgan's advice designed for? It is designed for traditional asset clients—stocks, bonds, commodities. Their model does not include variables like "halving," "continuous ETF inflows," or "accelerated institutional adoption." And these factors are genuinely changing the underlying structure of the crypto market. From August 17 to 27, U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs had net inflows for nine consecutive trading days, totaling about $3.04 billion. For the entire month of August, ETF inflows exceeded $3 billion. JPMorgan itself increased its Bitcoin ETF holdings from $162 million to $356 million in Q2—more than doubling its position. An institution advising clients to "reduce net longs" is itself increasing Bitcoin holdings. Think about that carefully. They are saying: the market may be "more turbulent" in the next two to three weeks. "Turbulence" does not equal "crash." The index level may not "plunge sharply," but sectors and individual stocks may experience "more volatility." This is a tactical judgment, not a strategic bearish view. What's the difference? Tactical means "be cautious in the short term," strategic means "don't touch this at all." JPMorgan did not say "stay away from Bitcoin." They said "don't heavily bet on one side in the short term." BTC is currently oscillating between $78,000 and $79,000. In August, Bitcoin briefly broke above $81,000, but that level clearly faces resistance. In the short term, macro pressures do exist. The rate hike probability jumped from 35% to 65%, the dollar is strengthening, and risk assets are under pressure. But the medium- to long-term logic remains intact. ETFs continue to see inflows. Institutions keep entering. The supply shock from halving is still being absorbed. Every time macro bearishness is released, it is a buying opportunity—as long as your position management is not all in. Below $72,000: buy in batches. This level is a strong recent support zone; panic sell-offs often create golden buying opportunities. Above $78,000: reduce in batches. Don't be greedy or try to sell at the absolute top. Pocketing profits is what counts. Between $72,000 and $78,000: watch more, act less. Range-bound oscillation—better to rest than to chase back and forth. This is not some advanced technical analysis. This is leaving room for yourself in an uncertain environment. There are two types of people in the market: One treats institutional reports as "imperial edicts." When the report says "reduce net longs," they immediately liquidate. When it says "buy," they go all in. These people are always chasing highs and selling lows, always handing the bag to others. The other treats institutional reports as "tools." They look at the logic, data, and reasoning process. They take what they agree with and judge the rest themselves. Which one do you want to be? In 2021, almost all Wall Street institutions said "Bitcoin is a bubble." In 2022, they said "cryptocurrency is dead." In 2023, they started quietly building positions. In 2024, with Bitcoin ETFs approved, they rushed in. Institutional reports lag the market—they wait for data, confirmation, and clear trends before speaking. But in crypto, by the time trends are clear, the rally is often over. JPMorgan's report is worth reading and thinking about, but not blindly following. Understand their logic—Fed risks, seasonal volatility, crowded positioning—these do exist. But make decisions with your own judgment—the crypto market's independent narrative, structural ETF inflows, and long-term halving impact—these are not included in their model. Institutional reports are tools, not faith. Understand the logic, but bet on your own. September will be turbulent. But I won't get off the ride because of turbulence. Because the destination of this ride I'm on is not next month, but the next cycle. $BTC $ETH $SOL #就业数据密集公布，沃什政策立场受检验