Is Shiba Inu (SHIB) More Resistant Than Bitcoin? Selling Pressure Avoided

A clear stress test was created by the increase in selling pressure throughout the cryptocurrency market, and the responses of Shiba Inu and Bitcoin reveal two quite different narratives. 

SHIB stays strong

Even though both assets saw a decline, the quality of that move and what came next are far more important than the actual red candles. The majority of the pressure was absorbed by Bitcoin. Short-term structure was broken and the price was forced to heavily rely on the $90,000 support zone as a result of a severe sell-off that drove Bitcoin back toward the lower end of its local range. 

On the downside, volume increased sharply, indicating that sellers were engaged and driven. This was de-risking as well as profit-taking. Because of this, Bitcoin’s attempts at recovery have been gradual and corrective, with the price struggling below important moving averages. In contrast, Shiba Inu responded quite differently. It avoided a similar downside impulse despite trading in a wider downtrend. There was pressure to sell, but it did not cascade.

The price fell swiftly, stabilized and started to consolidate rather than unravel. When compared to Bitcoin’s reaction, that strength is relative rather than absolute. The primary explanation is straightforward: the initial pressure was much lower. Leveraged macro sensitivity ETF flows and institutional exposure are all associated with Bitcoin. 

Bitcoin under much more pressure

Bitcoin is most severely impacted when risk-off behavior occurs. In that capital stack, SHIB is not in the middle. There was no potential chain reaction because there were fewer forced sellers and less leveraged positioning. In terms of structure, SHIB also moved closer to regional demand zones at the time of the sell-off. 

Supply was absorbed because buyers were already in a lower position. In the meantime, Bitcoin was still winding down from unsuccessful attempts at recovery close to resistance, which made it more susceptible to an acceleration of the decline. For investors, this does not imply that SHIB is now more powerful than Bitcoin overall. It indicates that SHIB suffered less harm in this particular incident. 

Although it still controls the direction of the market, Bitcoin is more vulnerable to losses during periods of high volatility. Future developments probably diverge. Before any long-term growth can occur, Bitcoin must defend its support and rebuild its structure. 

As long as broader market pressure does not increase, SHIB may continue to range and stabilize, avoiding further breakdown but not rallying aggressively. On its own, relative resilience is not a sign of success. However, when markets are determining who loses first — and Bitcoin did this time — it does matter.