#比特币价格预测 Seeing Tom Lee's explanation, you still have to admit that this set of rhetoric is very sophisticated. Short-term defense and long-term bullishness coexist, sounds great, but I've heard this kind of argument too many times over the years.

Back to the story of 2017. At that time, some analysts were shouting "Bitcoin will reach $100,000," while advising clients to reduce positions to hedge risks. We all thought this was clever risk management, but what happened? When the price fell to $3,800 in 2018, those "long-term bullish" voices disappeared. Then in 2020 and 2021, it repeated again.

The current situation is a bit like this: one institution says Bitcoin will surge to $200,000 this year, while another department suggests it might drop to $60,000 next year. This isn't dialectics; it's actually betting in two directions. No matter which way it goes, they can say "we predicted this long ago." I'm not saying Tom Lee is lying, but this organizational structure itself automatically immunizes against the criticism of "prediction errors."

But on the other hand, from a historical perspective, what is truly valuable is not guessing the short-term direction but understanding the essence of cycles. If in the first half of 2026, Bitcoin really returns to over $60,000, that might precisely indicate that the previous upward cycle has completed, and there will be opportunities for re-accumulation afterward. Conversely, if it directly surges to $200,000, the risk may not necessarily be smaller.

The key question remains: what are the assumptions behind these predictions? Liquidity? Policies? Institutional adoption? If the fundamental logic remains unchanged, then regardless of short-term fluctuations, the long-term direction might indeed be there. But if it's just about balancing in a probabilistic game, then one needs to be cautious.