BTC跌破6万美元生死线：预测市场为何集体看空下半年币圈

Overview

In June 2026, Bitcoin once again broke below the psychological threshold of $60,000, briefly dipping to around $59,100, marking its lowest level since the end of 2024. This is not an isolated event. Throughout June, US spot Bitcoin ETFs experienced net outflows exceeding $4 billion. Combined with the probability of "BTC reaching $150,000 this year" dropping below 1% on prediction markets like Polymarket, market sentiment is undergoing a systemic repricing. This article dissects the chain reaction of this critical breakdown, the specific data on institutional fund outflows, and the signals from prediction markets for the second half of the year, helping you understand the true driving forces behind the current correction.

Key Takeaways

Bitcoin fell below $60,000 on June 24, trading in the range of approximately $59,100 to $60,200, representing a decline of over 50% from its all-time high of $126,000 in October 2025.

In June, US spot Bitcoin ETFs experienced a record 13 consecutive trading days of net outflows, with cumulative outflows reaching $4.4 billion, the most significant capital exodus since ETFs were approved in early 2024.

The probability of "Bitcoin reaching $150,000 this year" on Polymarket has dropped to less than 1% (for the June 30 window) and around 5% (for the December 31 window), while the probability of "dropping below $100,000 by year-end" once reached 61%.

The derivatives market simultaneously witnessed a wave of liquidations, with single-day liquidation volumes ranging from over $1 billion to $3 billion, the vast majority being forced closures of long positions.

Due to over $1.2 billion in open interest for put options at the $60,000 strike price, this level has transformed from a previous support zone into a potential resistance area in the derivatives market.

Why Bitcoin Fell Below $60,000 Again

This decline was not triggered by a single event but resulted from multiple pressures converging simultaneously. According to a report by CoinDesk, Jean-David Péquignot, Chief Commercial Officer at Deribit, noted that over the past year, a large amount of institutional capital, including ETF buyers, large holders, and short-term speculators, concentrated their entry costs in the $60,000 to $67,000 range. When the price broke below this range, the unrealized losses of these buyers began to widen, and the opportunity cost of holding Bitcoin relative to surging assets like AI stocks became increasingly high, fueling panic selling.

Simultaneously, Bloomberg analysis points out that this decline was accompanied by heightened concerns over the sustainability of Strategy's (formerly MicroStrategy) financing mechanisms, and a broader shift in attention and capital among retail traders. A large number of individual investors are turning their focus to AI concept stocks instead of crypto assets. Compass Point analyst Ed Engel also noted in a report that selling activity among long-term holders (holding for more than 6 months) is increasing, typically seen as a signal of late-cycle capital capitulation.

The macroeconomic landscape cannot be ignored. According to IG's market analysis, the sharp correction in the AI and semiconductor sectors, delays in the advancement of the US CLARITY Act, and early selling signals from long-term holders collectively acted as the triggers for this decline.

June ETF Net Outflow Data: Institutional Capital is Exiting on a Large Scale

If retail panic is the surface phenomenon, then the withdrawal of institutional capital is the core driving force of this correction. According to data from SoSoValue cited by NFT Plazas, as of early June, US spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded net outflows for 13 consecutive trading days, totaling approximately $4.4 billion, marking the longest streak of capital exodus since spot Bitcoin ETFs were approved and began trading in 2024.

The significance of this figure lies in the fact that ETFs have been the core pillar supporting the institutional demand narrative for Bitcoin over the past two years. According to a CNBC report, the net asset value of Bitcoin ETFs has sharply contracted from $107.8 billion on May 14 to $80.4 billion. Capital outflows of this magnitude indicate that the core buying power that previously supported price increases is systematically weakening. It's worth noting that this consecutive outflow record was eventually broken on a trading day in June, with a single-day net inflow of about $3 million, but this was largely interpreted by the market as a technical breather rather than a signal of trend reversal.

Why Are Prediction Markets Like Polymarket Collectively Bearish?

Pricing in prediction markets often reflects genuine market sentiment backed by "real money" bets better than traditional analyst reports. According to a report by Bitcoin.com News, Polymarket's annual Bitcoin price market, with a trading volume of $45 million, showed that traders assigned a 64% probability to Bitcoin dropping to or hitting $50,000 by the end of 2026. Meanwhile, on the Kalshi platform, a market with trading volume exceeding $10 million gave Bitcoin only a 14% chance of returning to $100,000 by January 2027.

More emblematic is the probability change in the "BTC hits $150,000 this year" market. According to real-time data from the Polymarket page, the probability for the June 30 window has dropped to less than 1%. Even when broadened to the year-end window of December 31, the probability hovers around only 5%. In contrast, earlier this year, analysts from institutions like Standard Chartered, Strategy, and Bernstein were widely predicting Bitcoin would reach $150,000 in 2026. A previous report from CoinMarketCap showed that this probability was 21% at the beginning of January this year; it has now narrowed significantly.

Regarding the more pessimistic proposition of "dropping below $100,000 by year-end," a previous report by The Block showed its probability once reached 61%, reflecting deepening caution, even pessimism, among traders regarding market trends in the second half of the year. Behind this collective bearishness lies both concern over the ebbing of institutional buying and the pricing of uncertainty surrounding new market dynamics following the disruption of the four-year cycle pattern.

After Breaking Below $60,000, Where is the Next Strong Support Level?

Technically, the significance of the $60,000 level is not just psychological but also has a structural impact on the derivatives market. According to IG's analysis, data from the Deribit derivatives exchange shows open interest for put options at the $60,000 strike price exceeds $1.2 billion. Market makers hedging these positions often need to sell spot or futures when the price approaches this strike price. This "gamma hedging" behavior itself can accelerate the decline.

Looking downward, multiple analysis reports provide relatively consistent expectations for support levels. One view suggests that the $55,000 level (corresponding to the low in February 2026 and a historical volume cluster) is the first key support. If this level is lost, the market could accelerate to test the $50,000 to $52,000 range, which concentrates various technical indicators such as miner production costs and the cost basis of long-term holders. According to on-chain data analysis from CryptoQuant, the level around $53,600 is also considered a statistically significant potential support, combining historical price action and on-chain metrics like the short-term holder realized price.

It's important to emphasize that these support levels are reference ranges derived from historical data and on-chain indicators, not definitive predictions. The high volatility of the crypto market means actual price action can deviate significantly from any single model's forecast.

The Chain Reaction of Liquidations in the Derivatives Market

This decline was accompanied by a significant deleveraging event. According to IG's statistics, the single-day liquidation volume on June 24 reached approximately $994 million, with about $780 million coming from forced closures of long positions. Earlier in June, multiple reports indicated that single-day liquidation volumes briefly exceeded $1 billion to $3 billion, partly due to chain-reaction stop-loss orders and algorithmic selling triggered after the price broke key technical levels like $65,000.

The mechanism forming this liquidation wave exhibits typical negative feedback characteristics: price declines trigger leveraged long liquidations, the forced selling further depresses prices, which in turn triggers another round of liquidations at lower price levels. Strategy's high-profile founder, Michael Saylor, has also publicly cautioned that the presence of uncleared leveraged longs in the system means that once $60,000 is lost, collateral metrics could deteriorate rapidly, triggering a new wave of automated cascading liquidations.

In this high-volatility environment, both spot and futures traders need more sophisticated risk management tools to cope with potential sharp swings. If you want to seize structural opportunities amidst volatility, MEXC offers a complete trading system covering spot and futures, along with real-time liquidation data and funding rate monitoring tools, helping traders better assess the progress of market deleveraging.

Divergence in Market Sentiment and Institutional Views

It's worth noting that not all market participants are pessimistic. Matt Cole, CEO of Strive, told CNBC that this is the fifth time Bitcoin has touched the 200-week moving average, and the previous four instances proved to be excellent buying opportunities. Charles-Henry Monchau, CIO of Syz Group, attributed the recent decline to selling by Strategy and the "hot money" siphon effect towards AI stocks and South Korean memory chip stocks.

Meanwhile, the 30-day Pearson correlation coefficient between Bitcoin and traditional tech stocks like the Nasdaq and S&P 500 has dropped significantly from levels close to perfect positive correlation a month ago. This indicates that the market is reassessing the two previously coexisting narratives for Bitcoin – "digital gold" and "high-beta tech stock" – and the tension between them is becoming increasingly apparent.

Exclusive Insights from MEXC Crypto Pulse Research Team

We believe that the current correction below $60,000 is essentially the result of the resonance of two forces: the "repricing cycle" of institutional capital and the "structural migration" of retail attention, rather than a mere panic sell-off. The 13 consecutive days of ETF net outflows reflect not a denial of Bitcoin's long-term value, but a short-term reallocation of risk-on capital between the AI narrative and the crypto narrative. This type of capital rotation has occurred in every historical tech theme shift and is typically cyclical in nature.

Looking at the pricing logic of prediction markets, the two data points – "probability of $150,000 drops to 1%" and "61% probability of dropping below $100,000" – seem extremely pessimistic. However, they should be understood as traders rationally pricing near-term path uncertainty, not a fundamental rejection of Bitcoin's medium to long-term narrative. Historically, similar extreme bearish consensus often appears near cyclical bottom zones, rather than at the true start of a trend. This is by no means a sufficient reason to "buy the dip." Whether the deleveraging is complete and whether ETF flows stabilize remain the two core variables requiring continuous monitoring in the second half of the year. We suggest traders prioritize marginal changes in three indicators – funding rates, open interest, and spot ETF net flows – under current conditions, rather than relying solely on price itself for decisions.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the main reasons for Bitcoin falling below $60,000?

Primarily caused by a confluence of four factors: weakened institutional buying power due to consecutive net outflows from US spot ETFs, risk asset selling following the AI and semiconductor sector correction, forced liquidation of high-leverage longs at key technical levels, and early profit-taking signals from long-term holders.

Why are prediction markets so pessimistic about Bitcoin?

Pricing on platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi reflects market consensus backed by real capital bets, not a single analyst's view. Current data indicates traders widely see a very low probability of returning near all-time highs in the short term and are more inclined to bet on continued price pressure within the year, corroborating the reality of ETF outflows and tightening macro liquidity conditions.

After losing $60,000, what is the next key support level?

Multiple technical analysis reports identify the $55,000 level and the $50,000 to $52,000 range as potential supports. Some on-chain data models also point to the $53,600 area as having statistically significant support characteristics. However, these are reference ranges, not definitive conclusions.

How should ordinary investors respond now?

It is advisable to avoid using excessive leverage in a high-volatility environment, closely monitor leading indicators such as ETF fund flows, liquidation data, and funding rates, and plan positions rationally according to one's own risk tolerance, rather than chasing rallies or selling into panic.

Is the probability data from prediction markets reliable?

Prediction markets aggregate the collective judgment of participants through real capital trading. Historically, their accuracy has been relatively high one month before an event. However, they are essentially probability pricing based on current information, dynamically adjusting as new information arrives, and do not constitute a guarantee of future outcomes.

Disclaimer

The content of this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute any form of investment advice, financial advice, or trading advice. The cryptocurrency market is highly volatile and risky; past performance does not guarantee future results. The price levels, probability data, and market forecasts mentioned herein are based on publicly available information as of the time of writing and may become invalid as market conditions change. Readers should make independent judgments based on their own financial circumstances and may consult with a professional financial advisor before making any investment decisions.