Bloomberg's McGlone Calls $10K Bitcoin - Peers Say Nuclear War

Mike McGlone, Bloomberg Intelligence senior commodity strategist, is doubling down on his call that bitcoin could fall below $10,000.

Is that realistic, or is McGlone being ridiculous?

If bitcoin falls that much, there would simply be a huge issue—either with the infrastructure that robbed people’s trust in bitcoin, or a global economic, political, or financial crisis.

Unless McGlone sees something like that coming, the prediction isn’t realistic.

And that’s exactly what other analysts are saying.

Mati Greenspan, founder and CEO of Quantum Economics, didn’t mince words:

“For bitcoin to revisit $10,000 we’d need a global liquidity crisis, a nuclear war, and the internet to stop working.”

Does that sound about right?

It sounds about right.

Bitcoin is trading around $70,000. For it to drop 86% to $10,000 would require catastrophic events that fundamentally break the global financial system.

Not just a recession. Not just a bear market. Total systemic collapse.

And while McGlone might be right that further downside is possible—even likely—calling for $10,000 is extrapolating macro noise into silly conclusions.

Let me explain why $10,000 is unrealistic, why other analysts are predicting $28,000-$40,000 instead, whether we’ve already seen the bottom, and what happens to Strategy if McGlone is somehow right.

McGlone’s Case: Bitcoin Trades Like a Speculative Asset (And He’s Partially Right)

Mike McGlone argues that bitcoin “has increasingly traded in tandem with other speculative assets” as institutional participation has grown, weakening the narrative that crypto serves as an uncorrelated hedge.

We recently covered exactly this issue. When Trump threatened Iran with “unconditional surrender” and geopolitical risk spiked, bitcoin didn’t rally as a safe haven—it dropped 5% while gold and oil surged. That confirmed bitcoin isn’t acting as an uncorrelated hedge in moments of acute uncertainty.

So is McGlone right that the uncorrelated hedge narrative is dead?

No.

Bitcoin is still being adopted. The concept is being understood by more and more people as governments and banks continue to inflate and as people realize how flawed their system is.

Here’s the distinction:

Short-term: Bitcoin trades like a risk asset. When stocks drop, bitcoin drops. When geopolitical tensions spike, bitcoin drops. It’s correlated with tech stocks and speculative assets.

Long-term: Bitcoin is still an alternative to a broken fiat system. Governments keep inflating. Central banks keep printing. Trust in traditional institutions keeps eroding.

McGlone is right about the short-term correlation. He’s wrong about the long-term thesis.

The fact that bitcoin temporarily acts like a risk asset during market volatility doesn’t mean the store-of-value narrative is dead. It means adoption is still early, and most holders are still treating it as speculation rather than savings.

But that’s changing.

Institutional adoption is growing. Governments are regulating instead of banning. More people understand bitcoin’s fixed supply in a world of infinite fiat printing.

So yes, bitcoin correlates with risk assets in the short term. But the long-term adoption trend is intact.

McGlone sees the correlation and extrapolates it into total collapse. That’s the mistake.

$10K Would Require Nuclear War (Or Worse)

Mati Greenspan’s comment—that bitcoin hitting $10,000 would require “a global liquidity crisis, a nuclear war, and the internet to stop working”—is deliberately hyperbolic.

But he’s making a serious point.

Bitcoin would need to drop 86% from current prices to reach $10,000.

That’s not a normal bear market. That’s a catastrophic collapse.

And for that to happen, you’d need one of these scenarios:

1. Total loss of trust in bitcoin’s infrastructure

A critical vulnerability in Bitcoin’s protocol gets exploited. The network halts. Transactions fail. People lose faith.

Or a 51% attack succeeds. Double-spending becomes possible. The security model breaks.

That would destroy bitcoin.

But it’s extremely unlikely. Bitcoin has survived 15 years of attacks, hacks, and stress tests. The protocol is battle-tested. The network is decentralized and resilient.

If this hasn’t happened by now, it’s not happening.

2. Global economic/financial/political crisis

Total collapse of the global financial system. Banks fail. Liquidity evaporates. Credit markets freeze. Governments default.

In that scenario, everything crashes. Stocks, bonds, real estate, commodities. And yes, bitcoin too.

Because in a true liquidity crisis, people sell everything they can to raise cash. Bitcoin isn’t exempt.

But even then, $10,000 seems extreme.

Bitcoin hit $16,000 during the 2022 bear market—when inflation was spiking, the Fed was hiking rates aggressively, and crypto exchanges were collapsing.

For bitcoin to drop to $10,000 now, the crisis would have to be significantly worse than 2022.

What’s worse than 40-year-high inflation, aggressive rate hikes, and FTX collapsing?

Nuclear war. Global depression. Internet shutdown.

That’s Greenspan’s point.

It would take an extraordinary, once-in-a-century event to push bitcoin to $10,000.

And if that happens, bitcoin is the least of your concerns.

What Other Analysts Predict: $28K-$40K Is More Realistic

Several analysts dispute McGlone’s $10,000 target but agree further downside is possible.

Jason Fernandes, co-founder and market analyst at AdLunam, said:

“A move toward levels like $28,000 would likely require a meaningful contraction in global liquidity, widening credit spreads, or a broader financial stress event.”

Jonatan Randin, senior market analyst at PrimeXBT, expects bitcoin to “gradually drift lower” with the next major accumulation zone between $30,000 and $40,000.

That range—$28,000 to $40,000—is much closer to the prediction we covered earlier that bitcoin could drop another 30% to around $47,000 as the four-year cycle plays out.

Which range makes more sense: $10K (McGlone), $28K-$40K (others), or $47K (the 30% drop)?

The $28K-$40K range makes more sense.

Here’s why:

Bitcoin topped at $126,000 in October 2025. A drop to $47,000 would be a 63% decline from the peak. Historically, bitcoin bear markets see 70-80% drawdowns.

So if the pattern holds, bitcoin could go lower than $47,000.

But $10,000 would be a 92% decline from the peak.

That’s not a bear market. That’s annihilation.

Bitcoin’s worst bear market ever—the 2018 cycle—saw an 84% drop from peak to trough ($20,000 to $3,200).

For bitcoin to drop 92% now would require a crisis worse than anything bitcoin has ever experienced.

Is that possible? Technically yes. Is it likely? No.

The $28,000-$40,000 range represents a more realistic worst-case scenario: a severe bear market driven by macro deterioration, but not total systemic collapse.

That’s a 68-75% drop from the $126,000 peak—consistent with historical patterns.

So if you’re planning for downside, $28K-$40K is the range to watch. Not $10K.

Has Bitcoin Already Bottomed? (Greenspan vs. The Four-Year Cycle)

Mati Greenspan made an interesting claim:

“Bitcoin already cleared its major bear market in 2022. We’re currently looking at roughly a 50% retracement from the all-time high, which is not unusual for bitcoin.”

He added: “It’s quite possible we’ve already seen the bottom.”

Does that contradict the four-year cycle thesis, or is Greenspan wrong?

It contradicts the cycle thesis. But he makes sense.

Here’s the tension:

The four-year cycle says: Bitcoin peaks 16-18 months after the halving, then enters a bear market lasting about a year. Since bitcoin topped in October 2025 (18 months after the April 2024 halving), we’re in the bear phase now. More downside likely.

Greenspan says: Bitcoin already had its major bear market in 2022 (when it dropped to $16,000). The current 50% pullback from $126,000 to $68,000 is just a healthy correction, not a new bear market.

Both perspectives have merit.

If you view 2022 as the bear market and everything since as a bull market with corrections, then the current 50% pullback is normal and we might have already bottomed.

If you view the four-year cycle as intact and treat each post-halving peak as the start of a new bear phase, then we’re only partway through the decline.

Which is right?

Honestly, we don’t know.

The four-year cycle has held for over a decade. But it’s not a law of physics. It’s a pattern driven by supply shocks and human psychology. Patterns can break.

Maybe Greenspan is right and the 2022 bottom was the generational low. Maybe bitcoin doesn’t need to drop to $28,000 or $40,000. Maybe $68,000 holds and we slowly grind higher.

Or maybe the cycle repeats, and we get another leg down.

The uncertainty is real. Anyone claiming certainty is either lying or deluding themselves.

But here’s what I think:

If global macro conditions deteriorate—recession, liquidity crisis, credit stress—then bitcoin probably goes lower. $28K-$40K becomes realistic.

If macro conditions stabilize and risk appetite returns, then Greenspan could be right and we’ve seen the bottom.

The four-year cycle is a useful framework, but it’s not deterministic.

And that’s the honest answer: we don’t know if the bottom is in.

McGlone Says “Sell Rallies” – Is He Right?

Mike McGlone’s advice is blunt:

“It’s a bear market. Sell rallies.”

We predicted bitcoin would get rejected at $72,000—and it did. Bitcoin tested resistance, failed to break through, and dropped back to $68,000.

So is McGlone’s “sell rallies” advice right, or does it miss the long-term accumulation opportunity?

It could be right. Depends on multiple technicalities and fundamentals.

Here’s the case for “sell rallies”:

If you believe bitcoin is heading lower (to $47K, $40K, or even $28K), then selling rallies makes sense. Every bounce back to $70K-$72K is an opportunity to exit at higher prices before the next leg down.

That’s classic bear market trading. Don’t chase rallies. Sell into strength. Preserve capital.

But here’s the case against it:

If you’re a long-term holder who believes in bitcoin’s fundamentals, selling rallies means you’re timing the market. You’re trying to sell high and buy back lower.

That’s extremely difficult to execute.

What if you sell at $72,000, expecting a drop to $50,000, but bitcoin rallies to $80,000 instead? Now you’re buying back higher than where you sold.

What if you sell and the bottom is already in? You’ve exited your position right before the recovery begins.

Timing bear markets is hard.

So McGlone’s advice works if you’re a trader trying to preserve capital in a bear market.

But if you’re a long-term believer executing a consistent accumulation strategy—like Strategy buying another 17,994 BTC despite sitting on $6 billion in unrealized losses—then “sell rallies” misses the point.

You’re not trying to time the bottom. You’re buying continuously, betting that 5-10 years from now, today’s entry price won’t matter.

Both strategies are valid. They’re just optimizing for different outcomes.

McGlone is optimizing for capital preservation in a bear market.

Long-term holders are optimizing for maximum accumulation before the next cycle.

Which is right depends on your time horizon and risk tolerance.

What Happens to Strategy If Bitcoin Hits $10K?

If bitcoin actually dropped to $10,000, what happens to Strategy with their $75,862 average purchase price?

Total wipeout, or do they somehow survive because Saylor said they can handle $8K for 5 years?

They would survive only if they don’t liquidate their holdings.

Here’s the math:

Strategy holds 738,731 BTC at an average purchase price of $75,862 for a total cost of ~$56 billion.

If bitcoin drops to $10,000:

Holdings value: $7.4 billion
Unrealized loss: $48.6 billion
Loss percentage: 87%

That’s catastrophic on paper.

But here’s the key: unrealized losses don’t matter unless you’re forced to sell.

Strategy has $8.2 billion in debt. They need to refinance $6 billion in 2028. They pay $888 million per year in preferred dividends.

Can they service that debt if bitcoin is at $10,000?

Maybe. If they can keep raising capital through equity issuance and convertible debt, if they can refinance when debt matures, if they can pay dividends without selling bitcoin—then they survive.

Saylor said Strategy can handle bitcoin at $8,000 for 5 years. At $10,000, they’d be in slightly better shape.

But survival depends entirely on avoiding forced liquidation.

If creditors demand repayment and Strategy can’t refinance, they’d have to sell bitcoin. That selling creates downward pressure. Bitcoin drops further. More selling required. Death spiral.

So yes, they could survive at $10,000—but only if:

They can continue raising capital (even with bitcoin at $10K)
They can refinance debt without selling bitcoin
They can pay dividends from other revenue sources
They never face forced liquidation

That’s a lot of ifs.

And if bitcoin drops to $10,000 and stays there for years, those ifs become increasingly unlikely.

But here’s the thing: if bitcoin drops to $10,000, Strategy’s survival is the least important question.

Because if bitcoin hits $10,000, it means something fundamentally broke. Either bitcoin’s infrastructure, or the global financial system, or both.

In that scenario, everyone is screwed. Not just Strategy.

What This Really Means

Mike McGlone calls for bitcoin below $10,000. Other analysts say that requires nuclear war. The debate reveals how much uncertainty remains about bitcoin’s trajectory.

Here’s what we know:

$10K isn’t realistic unless catastrophic crisis occurs. Would require infrastructure failure destroying bitcoin trust, or global economic/political/financial crisis worse than anything in modern history. If neither happens, prediction is silly extrapolation.

Greenspan’s “nuclear war” comment sounds about right. For 86% drop from current prices, need global liquidity crisis, systemic collapse, or internet shutdown. Even 2022 bear (inflation, rate hikes, FTX) only took bitcoin to $16K.

McGlone partially right about correlation, wrong about thesis. Bitcoin does trade with risk assets short-term. But long-term adoption intact as more people understand it while governments/banks inflate and system flaws revealed.

$28K-$40K range more realistic than $10K. Other analysts’ predictions align with historical 70-80% bear market drawdowns. Represents severe bear market without total annihilation. $47K prediction we covered is optimistic end of realistic range.

Greenspan’s bottom call contradicts cycle but makes sense. If 2022 was the bear market, current 50% pullback is normal correction. But four-year cycle framework still useful even if not deterministic. Honest answer: we don’t know if bottom is in.

“Sell rallies” depends on strategy and timeframe. Right for traders preserving capital in bear market. Wrong for long-term holders accumulating for next cycle. Both valid, optimizing for different outcomes.

Strategy survives $10K only if no forced liquidation. Would have $48.6B unrealized loss (87% down). Can survive if they keep raising capital, refinance debt, pay dividends without selling bitcoin. But many ifs—and if bitcoin stays at $10K for years, survival becomes unlikely.

If bitcoin hits $10K, Strategy’s survival is least important question. Means something fundamentally broke—either bitcoin infrastructure or global system. In that scenario, everyone is screwed, not just Strategy.

The range to watch is $28K-$40K, not $10K. That’s the realistic worst-case absent total systemic collapse.