Bitcoin surges afresh to $87,200 as analysts expect US Treasury liquidity injections
Its price jumped 3.77% in the last 5 days (an addition of $3,165.57) as it continues to be influenced by a complex interplay of factors.
After reaching an all-time high of approximately $109,000 in January, the cryptocurrency has experienced fluctuations, recently trading around $84,000 as of April 17.
This price movement reflects a combination of market sentiment, macroeconomic factors, and technical indicators.
Expert insights on Bitcoin's recent price movements
Analysts have offered varied predictions for Bitcoin's trajectory in 2025.
Titan of Crypto, a well-known technical analyst, suggests that Bitcoin could reach $137,000 by mid-2025.
This forecast is based on the formation of a bullish pennant pattern and anticipated liquidity injections from the US Treasury.
Dan Tapiero, CEO of 10T Holdings, points to a rare spike in the CBOE Volatility Index (VIX) as a potential indicator of a rebound for risk assets like Bitcoin within the next 6 to 12 months, as per Cointelegraph.
Rally predicted
Benjamin Cowen, a crypto analyst, predicts that Bitcoin could rally to between $120,000 and $150,000 later in the year, provided it maintains support above $72,000, according to Coinpedia Fintech News.
Robert Kiyosaki, author of Rich Dad Poor Dad, envisions a long-term surge, forecasting Bitcoin to reach $1 million by 2035. He attributes this potential growth to ongoing economic challenges and increasing US debt.
Despite these optimistic projections, some market participants remain cautious.
Polymarket indicates a 61% probability that Bitcoin will surpass $110,000 in 2025.
However, they assign lower probabilities to more ambitious targets, with only a 29% chance of reaching $150,000 and a 14% chance of hitting $200,000, as per Business Insider.
Trump effect
On April 10, Bitcoin surged and most smaller cryptocurrencies gained even more after President Donald Trump surprised markets by saying he would pause so-called reciprocal tariffs on dozens of non-retaliating countries.
The largest digital asset jumped as much as 7.4% to $82,715, while XRP and Solana each increased more than 11%.
Ether, the second-biggest token, also turned higher after Trump noted the change on his social media platform.
Cryptocurrencies had been among few asset classes to hold steady, as investors kept dumping stocks and bonds and seeking havens to the turmoil.
Bitcoin's relative outperformance buttresses the argument that it should be included in portfolios to hedge against risks, said Joel Kruger, market strategist at LMAX Group.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
3 hours ago
- Gulf Today
The need to focus on the economy's significance
The size of the national debt has become a preoccupation across the political spectrum. Democrats have complained about the $3.4 trillion increase in the debt projected to result from President Donald Trump's tax cut. This represents 10 percent of the projected gross domestic product for 2035. Republicans also scream about the debt, even as they pass tax cuts to make it larger at every opportunity. Let's be clear: The bulk of the current deficit is the result of reduced tax revenue, not legislated increases in spending. Tax revenue peaked at 20% of GDP in 2000. For those who don't remember, the economy was booming that year, with a 4% unemployment rate and 4.1% GDP growth, according to the Tribune News Service. The latest projections, following the passage of Trump's tax cuts, show that tax revenue will be just over 16% of GDP next year. The loss of tax revenue, compared with the 2000 peak, will add $1.2 trillion to the 2026 deficit. While spending has increased relative to the economy, most of the increase was not due to profligate government spending but rather the result of higher Social Security and Medicare spending. This rise is because the huge baby boom cohort was in their prime working years in 2000. Now they are in their 60s and 70s and mostly collecting benefits from these programmes. Stepping back from the causes of deficits and debt for a moment, we should ask: Is the debt a big problem? A debt of $35 trillion or $40 trillion can scare people and be good fodder for political rhetoric, but the real question is how it affects people's lives. None of us sees the debt, in the sense that it does not directly affect us in our daily lives. We do see the economy. We know whether it is creating jobs and whether wages are outpacing prices. If the economy can generate growth at a respectable pace and it is broadly shared, we can say that we, and our children, will be better off in the future than we are today. If the economy can sustain 2.5% growth, we will, on average, be 30% richer 10 years from now. And that will be true even if the debt continues to grow as is now projected. Despite the fearmongering rhetoric, investors will not flee from holding the assets and the currency of a country with a strong, rapidly growing economy. However, recent policy decisions should make us question whether we will have a strong, rapidly growing economy. The Trump administration has made it a top priority to sever longstanding trade relations, instead imposing tariffs and making deals that have the lifespan of one of his golf games. This will make other countries reluctant to trade with the United States. Canada, the European Union, and much of the rest of the world are rapidly looking to make trade deals that exclude the United States. Trump is also attempting to chase out a large share of the US workforce. This is most immediately the case with undocumented workers who mostly hold low-paying jobs in construction, restaurants and farming. However, the anti-immigrant policies are also chasing away highly skilled workers who are concerned about being targeted by ICE agents empowered to arrest and detain anyone they decide could be undocumented. The Trump administration is also gutting funding for the research that has been the basis of US leadership in areas like medical technology and artificial Intelligence. It has declared war on the energy revolution, removing subsidies and imposing taxes on electric vehicles and clean energy. These policies almost seem designed to be an axe blow to the country's economy. A year ago, the economy was growing at a healthy pace, unemployment was low, and inflation was falling; we were seeing an unprecedented boom in factory construction.
Zawya
10 hours ago
- Zawya
Trump unlikely to enforce tariff threat on Russian oil
U.S. President Donald Trump is unlikely to follow through on his threat to place 100% tariffs on countries that buy Russian oil because it would worsen politically-damaging inflation pressures and his similar threat against buyers of Venezuelan oil has had limited success, especially in China. Trump said this month he would put 100% secondary tariffs on countries that buy Russian exports unless Moscow agrees to a major peace deal with Ukraine in 50 days, a deadline that would expire in early September. The threat mirrored an announcement in March that the U.S. would slap tariffs on buyers of sanctioned Venezuelan oil. No such tariffs have been imposed since, even though Venezuela's exports of oil have jumped. "We find that secondary tariffs may be too blunt of an instrument for the administration to use," on Russia, said Fernando Ferreira, the director of geopolitical risk service at consultancy Rapidan Energy Group. "If you're willing to go with the nuclear option by removing 4.5 plus million barrels a day from the market, and you're willing to cut off commercial ties with other countries because they're importing Russian oil, you're going to risk massive oil price spikes and a meltdown of the global economy." Clay Seigle, senior fellow and James Schlesinger chair in energy and geopolitics at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that if the 100% tariff is fully enforced on countries that receive Russian barrels, it has the potential to cut global supplies and drive prices higher. Analysts and traders are deeply skeptical that Trump will allow that to happen for two reasons, Seigle said. "First, he is very sensitive to high oil prices and will want to avoid that outcome." Second, Trump prefers consummating bilateral deals more than adhering to any strict formulas that would tie his hands in negotiations. "Some U.S. trade partner nations may, just like oil traders, dismiss this as grandstanding," Seigle said. On July 16, two days after issuing the tariff threat, Trump said the oil price of $64 a barrel was a great level, that his administration was trying to get it down a little bit more, and the low level was "one of the reasons that inflation's in check." Since then oil prices have stayed in the mid-$60s range, shrugging off the threat of imminent supply disruptions. Seigle said Trump's existing trade war, particularly his tariffs on steel, could push commodity prices higher for oil drillers in the United States, the world's top crude producer. That could raise prices for oil just as the midterm U.S. Congress elections get underway next year. Trump's Republicans hold razor-thin majorities in both the U.S. House and Senate and the president will likely avoid actions that spike oil prices during the campaigns, the analysts said. White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said Trump has proven he follows through on his promises. "He has been extremely tough on (Russian President Vladimir) Putin and smartly left all options on the table while leaving existing sanctions in place – and recently threatened Putin with biting tariffs and sanctions if he does not agree to a ceasefire." The Treasury Department, which administers sanctions, said it was ready to act. "As President Trump announced, Russia has 50 days to agree to a deal to end the war, or the U.S. is prepared to implement biting secondary sanctions," a spokesperson said. HESITANCY TO TARGET RUSSIA The Trump administration's lax enforcement of the 25% tariff threat in March on buyers of Venezuelan oil and the failure so far to impose effective energy sanctions on Russia are two other reasons why market participants are skeptical. China, Venezuela's top oil customer, has been adapting to U.S. sanctions on the oil exports since they were imposed in 2019. Over the last year, China has been buying more than $1 billion of Venezuelan oil rebranded as Brazilian, according to tanker tracking companies. Venezuela's exports surged in June as the loss of U.S. and European buyers was offset by cargoes sent to China. Indian oil refiners, major buyers of Russian crude, do not believe that Trump will follow through on the threat, and there are no plans to stop purchases of Russian oil, three sources at Indian refiners said. India's imports of Russian oil rose about 1% in the first half of this year, with refiners Reliance Industries and Nayara Energy making almost half of the overall purchases from Moscow, according to data provided by sources. Oil Minister Hardeep Singh Puri, however, said the world's third-largest oil importer and consumer was confident of meeting its needs using alternative sources if Russian supplies are hit. Trump's Treasury Department has designated about 19 Russian nationals since January 20 under counter-terrorism, cyber, and North Korea sanctions programs, actions mostly not related to the war in Ukraine, said Jeremy Paner, a partner at law firm Hughes Hubbard & Reed and former Treasury Department sanctions investigator. By comparison, the U.S. has designated about 75 Iranian nationals and entities and imposed 109 such measures on China since Trump began his second term, he said. "Based on the administration's apparent hesitancy to target Russia through trade sanctions, I do not see the Russian oil tariff threat as particularly effective," Paner said. Action is also not likely to come from Congress even though the U.S. Senate has strong bipartisan support for a bill that would impose 500% tariffs on buyers of Russian oil. The Senate's Republican leaders are waiting for Trump's go-ahead and have given no indication that they intend to take up the bill before they leave Washington for the August recess. Even if the bill passes, it will likely allow the president to waive tariffs, letting lawmakers claim they are tough on Russia but rendering the legislation mostly symbolic. "It all makes sense from a political messaging perspective, but from the perspective of what's needed for the legal authority on sanctions, it's a bit of a head scratcher," Paner said. (Reporting by Timothy Gardner; additional reporting by Patricia Zengerle in Washington, Nidhi Verma in New Delhi and Siyi Liu in Singapore Editing by Marguerita Choy)
Middle East Eye
14 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
Starmer's 'all guns, no butter' policy will cost him dearly
The recent Nato summit demanded that member states agree to reach a target of five percent of GDP on defence spending over the next decade. Nato secretary general Mark Rutte was beside himself with joy. This will make Nato 'more lethal', he vowed. Rutte was in no doubt as to why Nato had successfully agreed on this historic high in arms spending: US President Donald Trump, or 'daddy', as Rutte called him. In embarrassingly fulsome messages to Trump, made public by the US president, Rutte put to shame the most obsequious courtier in an 18th-century absolute monarchy, as he verbally prostrated himself at the feet of the ruler of the empire. In all fairness to Rutte, he was correctly summarising the view of European governments. Much as some claim to dislike Trump, they have fallen in line with his demands for increased arms expenditures in double-quick time. All but Spain endorsed the five-percent defence spending target, despite the fact that the US spends only 3.5 percent of GDP on arms. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Trump was triumphant, using the Nato news conference to rub the noses of European leaders in the latest proof that the US is the organisation's top dog. Never has founding secretary general Lord Ismay's aphorism - that Nato exists to keep 'the Soviet Union [read Russians] out, the Americans in, and the Germans [read Europeans] down' - been more true. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is an unqualified enthusiast for rearmament. The most clearly defining policy of his prime ministership so far, where so much else is shrouded in serial U-turns, is a commitment to US-led rearmament. The picture of Starmer at the recent G7 summit bowing at Trump's knee to pick up papers that the president had dropped went viral, because it accurately captured the political relationship between the two governments. Credibility gap Starmer, of course, signed up to the five percent of GDP rearmament target and coupled it with a commitment to buy a dozen American F35A fighters capable of carrying a nuclear payload, marking the first time the UK will have the capacity to deliver airborne nukes since the Cold War. The cost of this programme alone will be £15bn. More broadly, the newly publicised Strategic Defence Review underpins Starmer's over-inflated rhetoric about the UK needing to prepare to fight on the 'home front' in the case of a full land invasion of the UK. Such a project, unsuccessfully contemplated by Napoleon and Hitler, was last accomplished in 1066. There is no plausible modern candidate for this project. Russia, with an economy the size of Spain's and a military depleted by three years of unsuccessful war in Ukraine, is certainly not the 21st-century equivalent of either Napoleon or Hitler when their empires spanned the continent. Indeed, having failed to reach Kyiv, it is improbable to the point of absurdity to think that Russian troops might soon be on the Normandy beaches. The period of high Starmerism is past. Now the pendulum is swinging in the other direction, back towards traditional centrist Labourism The UK defence establishment and government are well aware that this huge credibility gap exists in the minds of British voters. The Strategic Defence Review spends an unusual amount of time worrying about how rearmament can be sold to the population. It calls for a 'national endeavour', first mooted by the previous Tory government, in which a wide variety of propaganda and 'educational' weapons will be fired at hapless citizens in order to reduce them to compliance with the warmongers' project. And there is no Starmer speech that does not echo the Strategic Defence Review's insistence that there will be a 'defence dividend', in the Orwellian language now common in government circles, that will result in more jobs. So far, the 'national endeavour' project is failing spectacularly. The purchase of F35A jets is a case in point. It's a slap in the face for Unite the Union general secretary Sharon Graham, who campaigned relentlessly for a renewal of the Eurofighter Typhoon fleet in the name of British jobs. In a sharp lesson in the UK's defence subservience to the US arms industry, Starmer ignored her and opted instead to flatter Trump with a purchase of American planes manufactured by Lockheed Martin, with only 15 percent of UK-made components. Leadership in danger But even when money spent by the UK government isn't pouring directly into the bank accounts of US defence contractors, it will never produce the same number of jobs as the same amount of money spent on civilian industry. Defence spending is simply a massively inefficient way of generating jobs. Beyond these specific arguments is the gigantic fact that Starmer is advocating huge increases in arms expenditures, while hacking away at the already emaciated welfare budget. The assault on welfare, the defining project of the first year of the Labour administration, has already produced a record-breaking back bench rebellion. This in turn produced yet another screeching U-turn from Starmer. Accompanying the U-turn is the blame game. At the moment, No. 10 guru Morgan McSweeney and 'iron chancellor' Rachel Reeves are the ones catching it in the neck. Starmer is running out of road Read More » As tens of thousands of people at the recent Glastonbury Festival cursed Starmer's name, Starmer himself has been busy apologising for his own mistakes to any journalist who will listen. A sure sign that Starmer's leadership is endangered was Health Secretary Wes Streeting's recent TV interview, in which he refuted criticism of the Glastonbury crowd by saying that Israel should get its 'own house in order'. Starmer is now a couple of by-election losses away from a leadership challenge. Perhaps he can make it to the May 2026 council elections if the fates spare sitting MPs and no by-election takes place. But whatever the timing proves to be, the period of high Starmerism is past. Now the pendulum is swinging in the other direction, back towards traditional centrist Labourism. A number of important consequences follow. Firstly, the time for Jeremy Corbyn to launch a new leftist party is now. Secondly, no new party can afford to be merely an electoral project: it must have the closest possible relations with Palestine and antiwar movements whose activists will be its core constituency. Thirdly, the antiwar movement will be central to ongoing opposition to the government. Reeves or her successor will return to the task of extracting the money for rearmament from working people, one way or another. The defence of working-class living standards at home will be intimately bound to opposition to the preparation for war abroad. The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.
