The passage of the GENIUS Act further strengthens the ideological steel stamp, making a 10-year slow bull for BTC possible.

The long-term slow bull structure of Bitcoin is not linear, nor does it rise every day, but is composed of swing trading paths formed by several policy switches, geopolitical conflicts, technological changes, and market sentiment.

Written by: @BlazingKevin_ , the Researcher at Movemaker

The starting point of the structural slow bull of Bitcoin has already formed.

I think we're at the beginning of a slow bull cycle with a long or even a 10-year span for Bitcoin. Phenomenally, the key turning point that contributed to the formation of this trend was the passage of the Bitcoin ETF at the end of 2023. From that moment on, Bitcoin's market properties began to change qualitatively, transforming step by step from a completely risky asset to a safe-haven asset. Bitcoin is in the early stages of becoming a safe-haven asset, but at the same time it is entering a cycle of interest rate cuts in the United States, so Bitcoin is in a good position to grow. Bitcoin's role in asset allocation has shifted from a "speculative object" to an "asset allocation tool", stimulating demand increments over a longer period.

The evolution of this asset's attributes coincides precisely with a turning point where monetary policy is about to shift from tight to loose. The Federal Reserve's interest rate cut cycle is not an abstract macro background, but rather a funding price signal that has a substantive impact on Bitcoin.

Under this mechanism, bitcoin will take on a new operating characteristic: whenever the market shows signs of correction after the sentiment is overheated, when the price is about to enter the bear market, there will be a wave of "liquidity" entering the market, interrupting the downward trend. We often say that there is "plenty of liquidity but a reluctance to bet" in the market, but this is not entirely true. Other copycat crypto assets cannot find PMFs due to the evaporation of valuation water and the fact that the technology has not yet landed, and there is a temporary lack of medium-term allocation logic; Bitcoin becomes "the only deterministic asset that can be wagered on" at this point. Therefore, as long as easing expectations still exist and ETFs continue to absorb funds, it will be extremely difficult for Bitcoin to form a bear market in the traditional sense throughout the interest rate cut cycle, and at most it will experience a phased pullback, or a local bubble will be cleared due to sudden macro events (such as tariff shocks and geopolitical risk aversion).

This means that bitcoin will cross the entire interest rate cut cycle as a "safe-haven asset", and its price anchoring logic will also change accordingly - from "risk appetite driven" to "macro certainty support". And once this rate-cutting cycle ends, with the passage of time, the maturity of ETFs, and the increase in institutional allocation weights, Bitcoin will also complete the initial transformation from a risky asset to a safe-haven asset. Next, as the next rate hike cycle begins, Bitcoin is likely to be truly trusted by the market as a "safe haven under rate hikes" for the first time. This will not only enhance its allocation position in the traditional market, but also make it more likely to obtain some of the capital siphon effect in the competition with traditional safe-haven assets such as gold and bonds, thus starting a structural slow bull cycle spanning ten years.

Looking ahead to the development of Bitcoin in many years or even 10 years, it is better to look at the current fuse that we may face before the United States actually shifts to consistent easing. Tariffs were undoubtedly the most sentiment-disturbing event in the first half of the year, but in fact, if we look at tariffs as a benign adjustment tool for Bitcoin, we may be able to look at their possible impact in the future from a different perspective. Secondly, the passage of the GENIUS Act marks the result of the United States accepting the inevitable decline in the status of the US dollar, and actively embracing the development of Crypto finance to amplify the multiplier effect of the US dollar on-chain.

Consider tariffs as a positive adjustment tool for Bitcoin, rather than a black swan trigger.

Over the past few months, it has been seen that Trump's top policy direction is reshoring manufacturing and improving finances, and in the process hitting major rivals. With the goal of improving the government's finances, Trump can sacrifice price stability or economic growth. As a result, the U.S. government's fiscal position accelerated during the pandemic, and the surge in the 10-year Treasury rate over the past few years has more than doubled the U.S. government's interest expense in just three years. And tariffs account for less than 2% of the federal tax structure, and even if tariffs are raised, the revenue they bring is insignificant compared to the huge interest expense, so why is Trump still making a fuss about tariffs?

The purpose of tariffs is to determine allies' attitudes and exchange for security protection

According to the role of tariffs, which is systematically elaborated by the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, in his article "A User's Guide to Reorganizing the Global Trading System", it can be understood that tariffs are an "abnormal tool for market intervention" and are especially used in crises or confrontations. The strategic logic of U.S. tariff policy is getting closer and closer to the route of "fiscal weaponization", that is, through the imposition of tariffs, it is not only "self-hematopoiesis" fiscally, but more importantly, "external rent" on a global scale. Milan pointed out that in the context of the new Cold War, the United States no longer pursues global free trade, but tries to reconstruct the global trade system into a "friendly shore trade network" with the United States as the core, that is, to force the transfer of key industrial chains to ally countries or the United States, and maintain the exclusivity and loyalty of this network through tariffs, subsidies, technology transfer restrictions and other means. In this framework, high tariffs do not mean that the United States has withdrawn from globalization, on the contrary, it is a hegemonic tool that seeks to regain control over the direction and rules of globalization. Trump's proposal to impose steep tariffs on all Chinese imports is not in essence a complete decoupling, but rather to force global manufacturers to "take sides" and shift production capacity from China to Vietnam, Mexico, India, and even the United States. Once the global manufacturing system is forced to restructure around the United States, the United States will be able to achieve sustained fiscal absorption of foreign production capacity through "geo-tariff rents" in the medium to long term. Just as the dollar settlement system allows the United States to tax the global financial system, the tariff system is becoming a new fiscal weapon to tie up and exploit the manufacturing capacity of the periphery.

The side effects of tariffs make Trump hesitate to act.

Tariffs are a double-edged sword. While they can restrict imports to promote the return of manufacturing, increase government tax revenue, and limit the benefits to rival countries, they also come with potential side effects that may explode at any moment. First is the issue of import-driven inflation. High tariffs may temporarily drive up prices of imported goods, stimulating inflationary pressure, which poses a challenge to the independence of the Federal Reserve's monetary policy. Secondly, there may be fierce countermeasures from rival countries, and allied nations might protest or even retaliate against the United States' unilateral tariff policy.

When tariffs threaten the capital market and the interest costs of the U.S. government, Trump becomes very nervous and immediately releases favorable news about tariffs to save market sentiment. Therefore, the destructive power of Trump's tariff policy is limited, but whenever sudden news about tariffs comes out, the stock market and the price of Bitcoin will pull back. Thus, viewing tariffs as a benign adjustment tool for Bitcoin is an appropriate perspective. The possibility of tariffs alone creating a black swan event is very low under the premise of declining recession expectations in the U.S., because Trump will not allow the negative impacts of events to increase interest costs.

The inevitable decline of the dollar's status has given stablecoins a greater mission.

For Trump, in order to achieve the goal of reshoring manufacturing, it is acceptable to appropriately sacrifice the dollar's position in international currency reserves. Part of the reason for the hollowing out of the manufacturing sector in the U.S. is the strength of the U.S. dollar. When the U.S. dollar continues to be strong, the world's demand for the U.S. dollar continues to rise, which in turn leads to a persistent financial surplus, which ultimately partly leads to a persistent trade deficit that causes U.S. manufacturing to flee. Therefore, in order to ensure the reshoring of manufacturing, Trump will frequently use the weapon of tariffs, but in the process will accelerate the decline of the dollar's position.

It can be said that against the backdrop of the rapid evolution of the global financial landscape, the relative weakening of traditional dollar control has become an undeniable fact. This change is not the result of a single event or policy error, but rather the outcome of the long-term accumulation and evolution of multiple structural factors. Although on the surface, the dollar's dominant position in international finance and trade remains solid, a deeper examination from the perspectives of underlying financial infrastructure, capital expansion paths, and the effectiveness of monetary policy tools reveals that its global influence is facing systemic challenges.

The first thing that must be confronted is that the multipolar trend of the global economy is reshaping the relative necessity of the dollar. In the previous globalization paradigm, the United States, as the export center of technology, institutions and capital, naturally had the right to speak, thus promoting the US dollar as the default anchor currency for global trade and financial activities. However, with the rapid development of other economies, especially in Asia and the Middle East, this single settlement mechanism with the US dollar at its core is gradually facing competition from alternative options. The global liquidity advantage and settlement monopoly of the traditional US dollar began to erode. The decline in the dollar's control does not mean the collapse of its position, but its "uniqueness" and "necessity" are weakening.

The second important dimension comes from the trend of credit overreach demonstrated by the United States in recent years in its fiscal and monetary operations. Although past credit expansion and the excessive issuance of the dollar are not new occurrences, their side effects have been significantly amplified in the context of a digital era with higher global market synchronization. Especially when the traditional financial order has not yet fully adapted to the new growth model led by the digital economy and AI, the inertia of American financial governance tools is laid bare.

The US dollar is no longer the only asset carrier that can provide global clearing and value storage; its role is gradually being diluted by a diverse range of protocol assets. The rapid evolution of the crypto system is also forcing sovereign currency systems to make strategic compromises. This oscillation between passive response and active adjustment further exposes the limitations of the traditional dollar governance system. The passage of the GENIUS Act can, to some extent, be seen as a strategic response and institutional concession by the US federal system to this new era of financial logic.

In summary, the relative decline of the traditional dollar's control is not a violent collapse, but more like an institutional and structural gradual dissolution. This dissolution comes not only from the multipolarization of global financial power, but also from the lag of the financial governance model of the United States itself, and more importantly, from the ability of the Crypto system to reconstruct new financial instruments, settlement paths and monetary consensus. In such a period of transition, the credit logic and governance mechanisms on which the traditional US dollar relies need to be deeply reshaped, and the GENIUS Act is the prelude to this reshaping attempt, and it sends a signal not of simple regulatory tightening or expansion, but of a fundamental paradigm shift in the thinking paradigm of monetary governance.

The GENIUS Act is a strategic compromise of "retreating to advance".

The GENIUS Act is not a regulatory move in the conventional sense, but more like a strategic "retreat to advance" voluntary compromise. The essence of this compromise lies in the fact that the United States has a clear understanding of the drastic changes in the monetary governance paradigm triggered by Crypto, and has begun to try to achieve a kind of "leverage" of the future financial infrastructure through institutional design. The widespread distribution of US dollar assets in the crypto system makes it impossible for the US to block its development through a single regulation, but instead needs to ensure that US dollar assets are not marginalized in the next stage of on-chain currency competition through institutional "inclusive regulation".

The GENIUS Act is strategically important precisely because it no longer has the primary purpose of "suppression", but rather brings the development of the US dollar stablecoin back into the federal perspective by building a predictable compliance framework. If you don't actively send a signal to accept the financial logic of crypto, you may be forced to accept a non-dollar-dominated on-chain financial system. Once the U.S. dollar loses its status as an anchor asset in the on-chain world, its global clearing capacity and ability to export financial instruments will also decline. Therefore, this is not out of the goodwill of openness, but out of the need to defend monetary sovereignty.

The GENIUS Act cannot simply be classified as an acceptance or tolerance of Crypto; rather, it resembles a "tactical retreat" of sovereign currency under a new paradigm, aimed at reintegrating resources and re-anchoring the on-chain monetary power structure.

Crypto brings not just a new market or a new asset class, but a fundamental challenge to the logic of financial control and the way value is empowered. In this process, the United States did not choose direct confrontation or forced regulation, but made trade-offs through the GENIUS Act—sacrificing direct control over the marginal aspects of crypto assets in exchange for the legitimacy of stablecoin dollar assets; relinquishing part of the on-chain order construction rights in exchange for the continuation of core asset anchoring rights.

The Role of Shadow Currency is Amplified Through Crypto Tools

The proposal of the GENIUS bill is ostensibly an adjustment to the order of stablecoin issuance, but its deeper significance lies in the fact that the US dollar monetary structure is exploring a new expansion mechanism to extend the original shadow currency logic with the help of the on-chain system. The practice of restaking models in the DeFi ecosystem provides direct inspiration for this structural change. Restaking is not a simple asset reuse, but a way to maximize the efficiency of the use of the underlying collateral through the protocol layer logic, which realizes the credit derivation and reuse of on-chain assets without changing the original credit source. A similar idea is being borrowed by the fiat currency world to build a second-layer amplification mechanism for the "on-chain dollar".

The shadow banking mechanism in the traditional financial system accomplishes the monetary multiplier effect through off-balance sheet credit expansion and non-traditional intermediaries. The on-chain stablecoin system has stronger modularity and automation, making the formation path of the currency multiplier not only shorter, but also more transparent. If the collateral of the stablecoin is U.S. bonds, its essence is to use national credit as the primary anchor source, and then carry out multiple rounds of amplification through the on-chain protocol structure. Each round of amplification can be designed as partial collateral, revolving pledge, or multi-asset cross-support, and with sufficient on-chain liquidity and scenario requirements, a complete set of new USD credit expansion systems driven by on-chain logic can be formed.

This structure not only continues the hierarchical characteristics of traditional shadow currencies but also introduces more operational on-chain settlement and tracking mechanisms. Especially after the gradual maturation of multi-chain deployment and cross-chain clearing and settlement frameworks, the liquidity paths of on-chain stablecoins will no longer be limited to centralized exchanges or payment platforms but may penetrate deeper into more protocol layer stacks. In such a structure, every instance of re-staking or asset packaging could become a new credit layer node. The GENIUS bill does not explicitly prohibit such operations, implying that the regulation itself tacitly acknowledges the sustainability of on-chain shadow currency structures, only imposing selection and review at the first layer issuance.

Moreover, the currency multiplier effect in the on-chain environment has a natural composability. Once on-chain stablecoins have a broad protocol circulation foundation, their staking capabilities will no longer be limited by the asset-liability structure of traditional finance, but will realize more granular asset transfer paths through smart contracts. This also means that the credit boundary of on-chain dollars will be jointly determined by market behavior and protocol design, rather than being entirely dependent on regulatory approval. This change represents a fundamental shock to the fiat currency system, not in terms of whether the scale of a certain type of stablecoin can be controlled, but in whether dollar credit can still be managed with a closed-loop approach to its final destination.

The logic behind the GENIUS Act is likely to have accepted the fact that this credit boundary is irreversibly extended. While clarifying the on-balance sheet regulatory framework, the U.S. does not set absolute restrictions on overseas issuance and repackaging routes, but instead establishes a multi-layered monetary structure of "on-balance sheet and on-balance sheet parallel, on-chain and off-chain synergy" by giving more flexibility to compliance agencies. In this way, U.S. regulators can continue to maintain the U.S. dollar's credit-based position in the on-chain system without interfering in the specific operation path, and control systemic risks through the first-layer access mechanism.

This also explains why, although the bill emphasizes that foreign issuers are not allowed to enter the US market, it does not deny its significance. In fact, the path of overseas issuance, on-chain repackaging, and protocol cycle amplification constitutes the basic prototype of a new generation of dollar expansion model, and its contribution to the influence of the dollar is no less than that of the traditional offshore dollar system. From this point of view, the restaking mechanism in DeFi is not only a liquidity efficiency improvement tool within Crypto, but also has become a reference blueprint for credit leverage design in the real financial structure.

The ongoing market expectations during the rate cut cycle prevent the retrospective indicators from triggering a "bear market".

Analyzing the impact of the above macro events and future trends, I will return to some data indicators of Bitcoin below, attempting to find more evidence from the data that demonstrates Bitcoin's potential resilience. First, let me state the conclusion I have drawn from the data: the continuous market expectations during the interest rate cut cycle have prevented the retrospective indicators from triggering a "bear market".

In observing the price trends of Bitcoin, various indicators can be categorized into two main types based on their mechanism of action and timeliness: leading indicators and lagging indicators. Furthermore, we can view market sentiment as an intermediate variable that connects these two types of indicators, serving as a catalyst for triggering supply-demand shifts and accelerating trend reversals.

The so-called leading indicators typically have a slower pace of change and a higher capability for trend prediction. These indicators do not imply that the price will immediately reverse, but rather provide an early warning of potential structural opportunities, making them very suitable for "left-side building"—which refers to a phase where the price has not yet clearly bottomed out, but structurally has a rebound foundation.

In contrast, posterior indicators rely on the price paths and trading behaviors that the market has already taken to confirm whether the trend is genuinely established. The core value of these indicators lies in trend verification; they are not used for prediction but serve as a reference for "swing trading" after the market has established a certain trend.

From the past four-year cycle to the current new market trajectory, many prior and posterior indicators have lost their judgment significance. Essentially, the main holders of Bitcoin have shifted from whales to institutions. Therefore, indicators such as miner shutdown price, P/E ratio, NUPL, etc., which were used in the previous cycle to determine bottoms and tops, have begun to fail.

In the operational trajectory of the new buying cycle of Bitcoin, we need to remove the concept of bull and bear cycles from our minds, and instead use the market sentiment's peaks and troughs as the basis for judging the phase state of Bitcoin.

Market sentiment is reflected by the buyers of Bitcoin. Market sentiment is the micro-dynamics that lie between structural factors and price behavior, and it is the direct cause that determines whether investors are willing to place bets and whether they are willing to collectively push the price trend. No matter how extreme the supply and demand are, if sentiment is not activated, the price may still remain sideways; however, if sentiment quickly heats up, even with limited structural support, it can lead to a sharp rebound or a sudden drop. Therefore, market sentiment becomes an indispensable bridging variable that connects a priori and a posteriori, structural logic with trading behavior. The reversal or extremes of sentiment can be analyzed by observing the relationship between long-term holders (LTH) and short-term holders (STH).

The Profit and Loss Ratio of Long-term Holders and Short-term Holders

The conversion of profit and loss status between LTH and STH often indicates important market turning points. By observing changes in the Long-Term Holder Profit and Loss Ratio (LTH-RPC), we can capture signals of market bottoms. When this indicator shows that long-term holders are starting to experience widespread losses, it often means that the market is approaching a stage low.

The principle of the indicator is:

• When the profit ratio of long-term holders significantly decreases and losses occur, it means that the realizable profit space has been greatly compressed.
• The continuation of the loss state will suppress the willingness to sell, and as the available chips for sale decrease, the market selling pressure will gradually weaken.
• When the selling momentum weakens to a certain extent, the market naturally forms a price bottom.

Historical data support:

• At the bottom of the bear markets in 2018 and 2022, the proportion of loss-making chips held by long-term holders reached the range of 28%-30%.
• In the extreme market conditions of March 2020, this indicator also rose to around 29%.
• In a bull market cycle, when this ratio reaches 4%-7%, it usually corresponds to the low point area of the adjustment market.

Bitcoin's market characteristics at 75000 show:

The proportion of losses for long-term holders has risen from nearly zero to 2.8%, approaching the levels of July 2024, when Bitcoin prices gained support.

In a bull market cycle, the proportion of losses for long-term holders starting from zero rising indicates that the bottom is near, serving as a prior indicator. When the losses exceed 10%, it is referred to as a posterior indicator confirming a bear market. Immediately after, when the losses reach around 30%, it again serves as a prior indicator of the bear market bottom.

When the vast majority of long-term holders are in a profit state, every price rebound will trigger profit-taking, creating sustained downward pressure. Whether at the bottom of a bear market or during a bull market pullback, when long-term holders generally turn to a loss position, it often signifies that the market is about to hit the bottom. This is because the selling momentum has been fully released at this point, and the unsustainable selling pressure will prompt prices to stabilize and rise.

Under the impact of the first tariff shock and the negative sentiment from the recession black swan, Bitcoin's proportion of losses among long-term holders has started to decline without reaching the previous bull market correction ratio, indicating that in the current cycle, the correction amplitude of Bitcoin under extreme market impacts is limited.

STH-RPC is a prior indicator of market sentiment signals and serves as a right-side entry signal. When it turns from negative to positive, it proves that current demand far exceeds supply; when it turns from positive to negative, it indicates a local high.

Indicator Principle:

When new short-term participants in the market gradually shift from a state of loss to profit, it usually indicates that overall confidence is recovering. When a price drop leads to losses for short-term participants, it means that sentiment may accelerate towards pessimism. Such changes are often accompanied by a reversal in market trends and are a key turning point signal for market sentiment.

Indicator triggered critical point:

Once the average cost of short-term holders exceeds their holding cost, it indicates that this batch of funds is realizing a profit and loss reversal. Their profit-taking sentiment will bring stronger buying momentum, pushing the price to continuously break through the previous trading range until the upward momentum is neutralized by the selling pressure of long-term investors. Therefore, when the "short-term holding cost line" crosses above the "cost line," it often signifies that the market is warming up and a trend reversal signal has appeared on the right side of the chart.

In the first half of this year, in the performance of Bitcoin, when STH-RPC turns negative, market sentiment accelerates to pessimism, which leads to LTH-RPC's loss rate rising to below 4%, marking the bottom of market sentiment. The bear market signal of LTH-RPC losses exceeding 10% may not be triggered in the medium to short cycle where the GENIUS bill is passed, the tariff's destructive power is limited, recession expectations are fading, and consistent easing is approaching.

The long-term slow bull structure of Bitcoin is not linear, nor will it rise every day; rather, it is composed of swing trading paths formed by several policy switches, geopolitical conflicts, technological changes, and market sentiment. However, as long as the "evolution of Bitcoin's asset attributes" path remains clear, it has the potential to become the most certain participant in this wave of global capital reassessment.