Bitcoin DUMPS To $83K As Bond Yields Break 24 - Year Highs

Scott Melker (0:01)

Bitcoin dropped to $83,000 as 30-year bond yields break 24-year highs. Of course, oil has also broken back above $100, and the geopolitical situation is a complete mess. Now, I would argue that Bitcoin is actually performing quite well in context of all of that, but I'll discuss that today with our amazing guest, Noel Acheson. Let's go.

Good morning, everybody, and happy Wednesday. We have a lot to talk about, and I am very fortunate that Noel is here to discuss it all with us. Good morning. It's been way, way, way too long.

Noel Acheson (0:52)

Too long, Scott. How are you doing?

Scott Melker (0:55)

I'm great. So we need to get you back on a Monday, too, by the way.

To the chaos? To the chaos?

Noel Acheson (1:02)

Are you kidding?

Scott Melker (1:03)

I need your help.

I need to just take over again, you know? Do my job for me. It's much easier that way. Okay, so listen, we've got the sort of headline here. I find these funny when we talk about Bitcoin underperforming, when it's actually, in my opinion, doing so well, as I said. But Bitcoin dips below 84,000 as oil jumps on Iranian tanker attacks. Of course, we have also 30-year bonds hitting fresh 24-year highs. The 10-year is skyrocketing, seemingly no intervention is working. Dollar is hitting new highs. These are actually all the things that you would think would have Bitcoin in the 50s or the 40s, not moving from the mid to the lower mid 80s.

Noel Acheson (1:47)

Yeah, no, totally.

There are signs of a tightening environment, and so it is surprising it hasn't been down. We have the higher yields, we have higher rate height expectations, we have higher oil, we have higher dollar. All of those things in theory is supposed to be dampening the monetary liquidity that we know Bitcoin is very sensitive to. It is actually very interesting, I think very, very interesting on many levels that it isn't. Yes, it's dropped to 83, but this is 83 This is actually nothing. Bitcoin is still doing very well. It's, I think, up again, up and it's easily outperforming stocks, easily outperforming golds. And so again, we're in a good position, we're in a really good situation right now.

Scott Melker (2:27)

Yeah, I think the past two months, there's been a massive regime change for Bitcoin. And I know that it's hard to look at short term to draw any massive conclusions. But when you break out at that level, on a candle as big as we had that one week, where it was up 24%, and then you actually start, if you're looking at the chart, breaking above every single MA and making a new higher high when you haven't seen it, especially when all other markets seem to be doing the opposite, I do think it's valid to start paying attention. Obviously, we have McGlone and a lot of other people who will say, Bitcoin's underperformed for a year or two years or whatever the timeframe is. But at some point, things change. And it feels like things have changed.

Noel Acheson (3:07)

Yeah, I mean, you look in the rear view mirror, it's like it's over, it's so over, right? But as we all know, you don't drive along the highway by looking in the rear view mirror. And the fact that we had that candle back in August, that says a lot about why we are where we are today. That that candle happened on the day that US Treasury Secretary Scott Vestent announced the surprise buybacks of longer term debt. It zoomed up and it didn't come down, which is quite common after you get that kind of a slope. It went along under 80,000 for a while, then it zoomed up again and it's continued to edge up since then.

Today's slides fall back not withstanding. That says a lot about why the liquidity indicators are not bringing Bitcoin lower. We're looking beyond the squeeze. We're looking beyond the potential tightening of the market, the potential break, should we say, of the current equilibrium. We're looking beyond that. And we saw that in the reaction to what was the first sign of official intervention. It was tiny, certainly, compared to what's coming, but it was the first sign.

Scott Melker (4:15)

Yeah. Let's talk about that specifically. So obviously, there was some level at which the Treasury decided to signal that they would intervene, right? As you've said, I mean, they went from 3 billion to 6 billion. When you have 40 trillion debt, it's not even a drop in the bucket. It's a drop and a drop in the bucket. But the signal was what was most important. So I think a lot of people falsely called it yield curve control, which I don't think it really is because they didn't set the number and say we're doing everything we can to defend this number. It's also not really QE if it's coming from the Treasury General Account.