Bitcoin in 2025: The Collective Debacle No One Saw Coming (That Everyone Wanted to Ignore)

The Dream of @150,000 USD@

Just a year ago, the consensus was overwhelming: Bitcoin would reach @150,000 USD@ before the end of 2025, likely approaching @200,000 USD@. It was such a unanimous prophecy that it seemed less like a prediction and more like a physical law of crypto markets.

Today, with BTC trading around @92,870 USD@—losing 2.46% in the last 24 hours—this narrative seems to come from a parallel universe. The price hit $126,080 at the beginning of October, only to retreat more than 33% from that peak. November was particularly brutal: a monthly drop of 28% that many called a “bloodbath,” confirming what the skeptics already knew.

But here’s what’s truly interesting: almost no major institution saw this coming. Neither VanEck, nor Tom Lee, nor Standard Chartered, nor the most quoted Wall Street analysts. Was it a failure of analysis or something deeper?

Why Did Everyone Get It Wrong? The Three Pillars of Shared Error

The unanimity of bullish predictions at the start of the year was based on three narratives that seemed unbreakable:

( 1. The “Spell” of the Halving: History Repeats )Or Did They Think So###

The historical pattern was tempting: after the 2012 halving, Bitcoin hit $1,150 in 13 months; after 2016, it surpassed $20,000 in 18 months; after 2020, it reached $69,000 in just 12 months.

With the fourth halving occurring in April 2024, the market concluded that the cycle “must” repeat. Analyses were directly proportional to this belief: more halving = more supply contraction = higher price. Pure logic, or so it seemed.

What they ignored: a radically different liquidity cycle. In 2017, global rates were low; in 2021, there were post-pandemic stimuli; in 2025, we faced the legacy of the largest rate hikes in 40 years, with the Fed maintaining a surprisingly hawkish stance.

( 2. The “Avalanche” of ETFs: The Institutional Capital That Never Arrived

Spot ETFs were promoted as the gates of Fort Knox. The market expected net inflows of over $100 billion during the year, with pension funds and sovereigns finally “legitimizing” Bitcoin in traditional portfolios.

The backing of BlackRock and Fidelity seemed to seal the fate: Bitcoin was “mainstreaming.” Institutions and analysts extrapolated this into their models, assuming that inflows would be inversely proportional to risk: more institutional money = less volatility, more price stability.

Reality: inflows were inconsistent; November saw net outflows of $3.48 billion to $4.3 billion. Even worse, no one considered that ETFs work both ways: during declines, they become escape routes for capital.

) 3. The Favorable Wind Trump: Policies That Didn’t Materialize

The “Trump card” was the third leg of the optimistic stool. A government favorable to crypto assets, a purported Bitcoin strategic reserve proposal, SEC changes… everything seemed to point to regulatory clarity and political tailwinds.

The market priced this in as certain before it happened. And when it did… it wasn’t enough. Or rather, it was “priced in” too quickly.

The Illusion’s Numbers: Who Got It Right and Who Disappeared

The predictions at the start of the year fall into three categories:

Aggressive ###+150,000 USD###: VanEck (200,000), Tom Lee (250,000), Standard Chartered (180,000). Average error over 80%.

Moderate (Open Range): JPMorgan and Flitpay left room for bearish scenarios, minimizing reputational damage.

Contrarians: Only MMCrypto clearly warned about collapse risks. Turned out to be the closest to reality.

Curious note: the most accurate predictions came from lesser-known analysts, while the institutional giants made the most grotesque errors.

The Conflict of Interest: The Hidden Reason Behind Extreme Optimism

This is where analysis becomes uncomfortable. The distribution of errors is not random. It’s directly proportional to the size and influence of the institution.

Why?

Because VanEck sells Bitcoin ETFs. If they publish a bearish report, they sabotage their own product.

Because Standard Chartered offers custody of crypto assets. Being pessimistic means losing business.

Because Tom Lee built his reputation predicting bullish rebounds. Publicly retracting is a brand suicide.

Because clients of these institutions needed to justify positions taken between $80,000 and $100,000. An “@150,000+@” target tells the client: “your decision was correct, hold the investment.” An “@90,000 in December@” target would say: “you made a mistake.”

Aggressive predictions also generate more media coverage. “Bitcoin at @250,000 USD@” is a viral headline. “Bitcoin could fall 30%” is ignored.

The Critical Blind Spot: Bitcoin Is Not Gold

The biggest conceptual mistake was comparing Bitcoin to gold. Institutions built their models assuming BTC is a “digital gold,” a safe haven asset for inflation.

But 2025 proved that Bitcoin behaves more like a Nasdaq tech stock: extremely sensitive to liquidity, highly correlated with real rates, vulnerable when the Fed maintains high interest rates.

The central contradiction: Bitcoin does not generate cash flow nor pay interest. Its value depends entirely on “someone buying it more expensive tomorrow.” In low-rate times, this works. When risk-free yields reach 4-5%, the opportunity cost becomes unsustainable.

The market started 2025 discounting 4-6 rate cuts from the Fed. By November, those expectations collapsed from 93% to 38%.

When the central hypothesis collapses, all predictions built on it also fall apart.

The Uncomfortable Lesson for Institutions (And Investors)

Unanimous consensus is a red flag, not confirmation. When 9 out of 10 institutions say the same thing, that idea is already fully reflected in the price. The market needs positive surprises, not just confirmations of what everyone already expects.

Second: the size and reputation of an institution are inversely proportional to the accuracy of their Bitcoin predictions. The conflict of interest is inevitable in this space. Not because analysts are incompetent, but because the structural incentive is to be bullish, regardless of what the data suggests.

Third: risk management must always precede profit prediction. The right question was never “Will Bitcoin reach @150,000 USD@” but “What happens if it doesn’t?”

So What Now?

Bitcoin is in a territory of indecision. With current data showing $92.87K, daily losses of 2.46% but monthly gains of 5.30%, the market is assessing whether rates will really fall or if inflationary pressures will persist.

True wisdom is not about predicting correctly but thinking independently while others predict collectively. When VanEck, Tom Lee, and the establishment are unanimously bullish, ask yourself: what contrarian view are they ignoring?

Cycles repeat, but never exactly the same. The next likely surprise will not carry the same name as the previous ones. However, the essence of excessive market optimism never changes.