Luke Gromen Warns Bitcoin Could Slide Toward $40K in 2026

While still supportive of the long-term debasement thesis, Gromen argues that gold and select equities are currently better positioned than Bitcoin to benefit from rising debt and fiscal dominance. This view aligns with the opinion of 10x Research’s Markus Thielen, who says Bitcoin’s four-year cycle is still intact but no longer driven by the halving, instead being shaped by politics, liquidity and institutional behavior. 

Luke Gromen Turns Bearish on Bitcoin

Global macro analyst Luke Gromen adopted a more cautious near-term outlook on Bitcoin, and warned that the asset could fall as low as the $40,000 range in 2026 due to macroeconomic conditions and investor narratives. Speaking on the RiskReversal podcast, Gromen mentioned his long-standing belief in the debasement trade. 

This is the idea that governments will erode the real value of their debts through inflation and currency weakness, but he suggested that Bitcoin is no longer the best vehicle to express that thesis in the current environment. Instead, he argued that gold and select equities are doing a better job of capturing the dynamics of fiscal dominance and rising debt burdens, while most other assets risk being “waylaid” in the near term.

The debasement trade traditionally positioned Bitcoin alongside gold as a scarce asset designed to preserve purchasing power as fiat currencies weaken. However, Gromen said several technical and narrative factors undermined Bitcoin’s near-term risk-reward profile. 

He pointed to Bitcoin’s failure to make new highs relative to gold, the loss of key moving averages, and increasing discussion around quantum computing as signals that the market has become more vulnerable. For people familiar with his work, this was a noticeable shift in tone. While Gromen is still structurally bullish on the long-term implications of debt expansion and currency debasement, he now frames Bitcoin as a position that should be tactically reduced rather than held unconditionally.

BTC’s price action over the past year (Source: CoinMarketCap)

His comments were made during a broader backdrop of macro uncertainty. Analysts are questioning whether Bitcoin can sustain the gains that followed the launch of US spot ETFs, especially as concerns mount around the AI sector and as US labor and consumer data show signs of strain. At the same time, quantum computing began to feature more in market discussions, even though most cryptographers believe practical attacks on Bitcoin’s cryptography are still very far off.

Not everyone agrees with Gromen’s assessment. Several Bitcoin-focused analysts pushed back by arguing that broken moving averages and underperformance versus gold often appear during periods of weakness rather than at market tops. On-chain analysts also dismissed the quantum risk narrative as overblown, and suggested that it reflects sentiment on social media more than hard data or imminent technical danger.

Market flows complicate the picture even more, especially after huge outflows in November.  In this context, Gromen’s shift looks less like a rejection of Bitcoin’s long-term role in the debasement trade and more like a tactical pause. 

Macro Forces Now Drive Bitcoin’s Market Cycle

While Bitcoin’s long-discussed four-year cycle is still unfolding, the forces driving it have changed a lot, according to Markus Thielen, head of research at 10x Research. Speaking on The Wolf Of All Streets podcast, Thielen pushed back against claims that the cycle is “broken,” and argued instead that it evolved away from Bitcoin’s halving schedule and toward macro-political dynamics and liquidity conditions.

Thielen said historical price peaks in 2013, 2017 and 2021 all occurred in the fourth quarter, which he believes aligns more closely with US presidential election cycles and political uncertainty than with the timing of Bitcoin’s programmed supply reductions. Over time, the halving shifted across the calendar, weakening the argument that it is the primary driver of market cycles. In contrast, election periods tend to coincide with heightened fiscal debates, shifting policy expectations and changes in investor risk appetite, all of which have a more direct impact on capital flows.

In his view, political uncertainty around US elections plays a very meaningful role in shaping market behavior. Thielen explained  that concerns over whether a sitting president’s party might lose congressional power can influence expectations about future policy, spending and regulation, ultimately affecting liquidity and risk assets like Bitcoin. As those uncertainties resolve, markets often reprice accordingly, contributing to cycle peaks and corrections.

His comments were made as Bitcoin struggles to gain traction despite the Federal Reserve’s recent rate cut. While rate cuts historically supported risk assets, Thielen argued that today’s market structure is different. 

Institutional investors now dominate crypto trading and tend to respond more cautiously to policy shifts, particularly when signals from the Fed remain mixed and broader liquidity conditions are tightening rather than expanding. As a result, the usual boost from easier monetary policy has been muted.

Thielen also pointed to slowing capital inflows into Bitcoin compared with last year, which reduced the upside momentum needed to sustain a breakout. Without a meaningful improvement in liquidity, he expects Bitcoin to stay in a consolidation phase instead of entering another rapid, parabolic rally. This dynamic, he said, reinforces the idea that liquidity, not supply mechanics, is the key variable to watch.

The perspective is similar to comments made earlier by BitMEX co-founder Arthur Hayes, who also argued that the traditional four-year crypto cycle is effectively dead. Hayes believes that Bitcoin cycles have always been driven by global liquidity conditions rather than halving events.