Recently, Bitcoin has experienced a rally, but it has also created two notable CME gaps—around $90,000-$91,000 and $88,000-$90,000. Many are beginning to worry that these gaps will be filled, especially if the price falls below the $88,000 level, which could trigger a "narrative reversal" in the market. At that point, high-leverage investors could face tough times.
Why do these gaps appear? Essentially, it's because US stock markets stop trading on weekends, while Bitcoin spot trading continues uninterrupted, creating a price discrepancy. Although many say "gaps will always be filled," this is not an absolute rule. The key is when enough traders focus on the same price level, that level becomes a zone of order accumulation and stop-loss clustering.
Options market data also confirms this. According to data, around December 31, the market's implied volatility for the next month is expected to be between 40% and 58%. Interestingly, this contrasts with the increasing short positions in options observed in late November. This shift may indicate that the market has already priced in expectations of significant volatility.
Another noteworthy point is the change in capital flows. Several outflows occurred from Bitcoin spot ETFs between mid and late December (from the 18th to the 29th), but a rebound happened in early January. This change in capital flow rhythm often accompanies price volatility and highlights the significance of technical indicators like gaps.
So, based on the current situation, what might happen to Bitcoin next? There are roughly three possibilities.
First: The price quickly stabilizes in the $90,000-$91,000 range after a sharp pullback, and after leveraged positions are liquidated, spot buying resumes, market sentiment adjusts, and altcoins rebound along with Bitcoin.
Second: A deep correction occurs, dropping below $90,000 and heading straight to $88,000. In this scenario, high-risk altcoins like meme coins could suffer, potentially triggering a large-scale deleveraging and severely damaging market confidence.
Third: Supported by a strong macroeconomic environment and an upward trend, Bitcoin holds its current levels or even pushes higher, breaking the market's "gap must be filled" consensus.
Finally, it's worth noting that CME gaps are ultimately just indicators of market liquidity and sentiment, not absolute rules. The macroeconomic environment and capital flow rhythms have long surpassed the significance of technical gaps themselves. Instead of obsessing over whether gaps will be filled, it's better to pay attention to actual capital movements and market sentiment shifts.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
8 Likes
Reward
8
6
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
SelfStaking
· 01-09 09:22
Gaps and gaps again, to put it simply, it's all about watching capital movements. The macro is the boss.
View OriginalReply0
TopEscapeArtist
· 01-06 10:55
The 88,000 line I’ve been watching for a week, now I’m really scared.
---
Once again, gap theory. Last time I listened to this set, I bought the dip and lost my pants.
---
The capital rebound, just a rebound. The technical signals have long indicated a bearish outlook.
---
Wait, implied volatility is already at 58%? It has to fall further, right?
---
Basically, the market manipulators are shaking out the weak hands. My stop-loss is at 88,000. Hope it doesn’t get triggered.
---
Macro economic support? Bro, are you joking? Who’s still paying attention to macro now?
---
When they liquidate leverage, I’ll be fully in to buy the dip. The all-time high is right in front of us.
---
The sentiment indicator is exploding, which is a dangerous signal.
---
The outflow of funds in December is no coincidence. I tell you, the big players are dumping.
---
MACD is about to form a death cross. Don’t ask me how I see it; it’s obvious on the K-line.
View OriginalReply0
AlphaWhisperer
· 01-06 10:53
I'm starting to worry about the gap again, but it's actually been resolved for a while now.
Honestly, this wave of Bitcoin depends on the funding situation; the technical analysis is outdated.
Breaking 88k is the real measure; what are we still talking about?
Leverage blew up, serves them right, because they were so overconfident.
Macro is the key; gaps and such are all illusions.
View OriginalReply0
GasSavingMaster
· 01-06 10:53
Gaps are really being mythologized. I can't stand those who are fixated on around 90,000, as if Bitcoin must fill downward.
High leverage traders are still trembling; liquidity is the real boss, technicals are just clouds, brothers.
Instead of worrying about the gap, it's better to see what institutions are doing—that's the real deal.
Whether the 88 support is solid or not depends on the macro environment. The argument that gaps must be filled should really be discarded.
The only current issue is the flow of funds; everything else is just noise.
View OriginalReply0
MevHunter
· 01-06 10:41
缺口论再火也填不了我的钱包啊,关键还是看宏观和资金啦
Reply0
SnapshotLaborer
· 01-06 10:40
The gap thing, honestly, is just a psychological game; there's no need to overinterpret it.
The high-leverage buddies are about to lose their grip; if it drops to 88k, it's time to clear the market.
Instead of staring at the gap, it's better to see what institutions are doing lately; capital is the real trump card.
Whether this wave can break through 90,000 depends mainly on whether the macro environment is willing to buy in.
Meme coins are about to be used as stepping stones again, which is really a bit tragic.
Must the gap be filled? Haha, it's time to update this narrative.
The capital flow of spot ETFs is what really matters; the technical side has long been crushed by the macro environment.
Recently, Bitcoin has experienced a rally, but it has also created two notable CME gaps—around $90,000-$91,000 and $88,000-$90,000. Many are beginning to worry that these gaps will be filled, especially if the price falls below the $88,000 level, which could trigger a "narrative reversal" in the market. At that point, high-leverage investors could face tough times.
Why do these gaps appear? Essentially, it's because US stock markets stop trading on weekends, while Bitcoin spot trading continues uninterrupted, creating a price discrepancy. Although many say "gaps will always be filled," this is not an absolute rule. The key is when enough traders focus on the same price level, that level becomes a zone of order accumulation and stop-loss clustering.
Options market data also confirms this. According to data, around December 31, the market's implied volatility for the next month is expected to be between 40% and 58%. Interestingly, this contrasts with the increasing short positions in options observed in late November. This shift may indicate that the market has already priced in expectations of significant volatility.
Another noteworthy point is the change in capital flows. Several outflows occurred from Bitcoin spot ETFs between mid and late December (from the 18th to the 29th), but a rebound happened in early January. This change in capital flow rhythm often accompanies price volatility and highlights the significance of technical indicators like gaps.
So, based on the current situation, what might happen to Bitcoin next? There are roughly three possibilities.
First: The price quickly stabilizes in the $90,000-$91,000 range after a sharp pullback, and after leveraged positions are liquidated, spot buying resumes, market sentiment adjusts, and altcoins rebound along with Bitcoin.
Second: A deep correction occurs, dropping below $90,000 and heading straight to $88,000. In this scenario, high-risk altcoins like meme coins could suffer, potentially triggering a large-scale deleveraging and severely damaging market confidence.
Third: Supported by a strong macroeconomic environment and an upward trend, Bitcoin holds its current levels or even pushes higher, breaking the market's "gap must be filled" consensus.
Finally, it's worth noting that CME gaps are ultimately just indicators of market liquidity and sentiment, not absolute rules. The macroeconomic environment and capital flow rhythms have long surpassed the significance of technical gaps themselves. Instead of obsessing over whether gaps will be filled, it's better to pay attention to actual capital movements and market sentiment shifts.