This analysis is based on Brian Kim’s broadcast of (the fourth week of October). At that time Bitcoin traded near $81,300; at the time of writing () it was near $80,800 (reference prices: CoinGecko daily data). The price levels and conditions discussed below refer to the market as it stood at the time of the broadcast.
Elliott Wave analyst Brian Kim sees Bitcoin approaching what he describes as its most powerful downside wave — yet he openly acknowledges the possibility that a competing analysis could prove correct. That tension between conviction and humility defines the framework he presented in his latest broadcast.
The broader context is not calm. Treasury yields moved back toward the 4% range in the period covered by the analysis, offering a brief sense of relief, but Kim made clear that this temporary retreat does not change his Elliott Wave reading on US bond yields. He referenced the view held by a BMO Global S management analyst named Davis, who had projected that the US 30-year Treasury yield crossing 6% is unavoidable, with the possibility of it occurring as early as October 2026. Kim stated he agrees with the substance of that view, even though the specific timing did not materialize precisely.
Kim said the next wave in his Bitcoin count is the three of three, which he expects to bring a particularly strong decline. He also spent considerable time engaging with an opposing bullish case, and he did not dismiss it entirely. His position is conditional and evidence-dependent, not dogmatic.
The Bond Market Pressure Beneath the Surface
Kim opened the analysis by tracing a chain of structural risks in the US Treasury market, each of which he connected to Bitcoin as a risk asset.
He described how China once held 29% of US Treasuries and has now reduced that share to around 6.2%. He noted that Japan, which he identified as the current largest holder with approximately 1.2 trillion dollars in holdings, is now facing rising domestic yields, prompting discussion among Japanese investors about selling US Treasuries in favor of their own domestic bond market. If Japan reduces its holdings further, Kim said, the supply of Treasuries on the market increases, which pushes yields higher.
Into that supply gap, hedge funds have stepped in. Kim noted that hedge funds now hold roughly 9% of the total Treasury market, a share he described as substantial. He expressed concern about this because hedge funds carry leverage. If their asset values decline — for example, because bond prices fall as yields rise — they can face margin calls. If they cannot meet those calls, they face liquidation. Kim laid out the scenario in which multiple hedge funds face forced selling simultaneously, releasing a large volume of Treasuries back into the market all at once, which would in turn push yields higher still. He described this as a cycle of concern, not a certainty.
He also introduced the Benner Cycle, a historical pattern associated with market peaks and troughs on roughly 8-to-20-year rotations. He noted that 2026 falls within a period that the cycle historically marks as a time to be cautious. He cited the cycle’s accuracy around 1999 and 2007, and said that with two months remaining in 2026 — November and December — he thinks it warrants attention. He was explicit that this does not mean a crash is certain, calling it instead a signal that this is a time to be careful.
On the AI debt question, Kim noted that the current debt burden of AI companies is four times what comparable technology-era companies carried during the dot-com period. He said that with borrowing costs having risen significantly, whether these companies can service that debt load is a genuine question. He did not assert that a crash will follow, but included it as one of several structural concerns accumulating simultaneously.
The ETF Cost Basis and the Psychology of Selling
Kim turned to Bitcoin-specific data to explain why the wave structure he is watching connects directly to investor behavior.
He pointed to the average cost basis for holders of US spot Bitcoin ETFs — products like BlackRock’s IBIT — which he placed at 81,000 dollars. In his framing, when people start seeing their account values declining — from 81,000 to 79,000 to 78,000 dollars — the instinct is to sell in order to preserve whatever remains. He described 81,000 dollars as the threshold below which loss-aversion selling begins, because falling below that level is when people start losing money and therefore sell without hesitation. Kim said that if Bitcoin breaks below the 74,000-dollar short-term holder cost basis, selling would increase.
Separately, he identified the short-term holder cost basis at 74,000 dollars. He described this as the level belonging to short-term investors, and said it is a key level because breaking below it intensifies selling pressure from that group. When short-term holders who had been sitting on modest gains see those gains turn to losses as price moves through 74,000 dollars, the urgency to sell increases further.
He was careful to present these two levels as independent triggers for different groups of sellers rather than as a direct sequential path to any lower price target.
He also discussed the low on-chain transaction volume in the current market as a concern. He noted that Glassnode, which he described as a globally respected on-chain data company, had flagged in previous analysis that price was moving without a corresponding increase in volume — a divergence it treated as a question mark about whether a genuine bull market has begun. He referenced that Glassnode tends to be neutral in its positioning and does not make directional calls. He contrasted this with the view from CryptoQuant, which he described as fully bullish.
Wave Three of Three: The Structural Core of the Bearish Case
The center of Kim’s analysis is the Elliott Wave count, and he presented it in careful structural terms.
He described the current position in the wave count as being within a larger zigzag corrective pattern. He stated that the A-wave down has completed with a five-count structure, and the B-wave up has now completed with a three-count structure — specifically a flat pattern rather than the more common zigzag within the B-wave. He said the weekly chart was closely following the pattern shown in the book.
He contrasted this with the view of another analyst he referenced, who has argued that the corrective sequence is already complete and that a new bull market is beginning. Kim said he cannot agree with that interpretation because he believes the pattern is not yet complete. He said longer-duration counts generally show a clear pattern.
Within this framework, he stated that the next wave is the wave labeled three of three, and he identified it as the strongest wave in Elliott Wave analysis. He described it as a powerful decline, stronger than what has come before it in this sequence. He said the three of three count is Elliott Wave’s strongest wave, meaning the decline, when it arrives, is expected to be sharp and driven by mass selling behavior.
He described the psychological mechanism: when everyone holds the same cost basis levels and the price moves through those levels in sequence, each group of participants reaches the same emotional threshold at roughly the same time and sells together. This synchronized selling is what gives the three of three wave its force.
He said that once the current secondary correction finishes — and he indicated the chart requires a bounce here before resuming — the three of three wave should produce the significant decline he is expecting. He pointed to a level of 79,000 dollars as a point on the chart where, if broken, the directional case becomes clearer.
Regarding how far the decline could extend, Kim said that the price level where Bitcoin becomes what he called “very attractive” is somewhere around 40,000 to 50,000 dollars. He framed this not as a precise target but as the zone where he believes the buying opportunity that matters for medium-to-long-term investors will emerge.
He acknowledged that if his count is correct and the price does reach that zone, investors who have been applying dollar-cost averaging — for example, buying some at 80,000 dollars and waiting to buy more at 40,000 dollars — would achieve a blended cost of around 60,000 dollars.
The Alternate Scenario and the Conditions for a Reversal
Kim did not present his bearish count as the only possible reading. He engaged at length with the bullish case associated with another analyst and explained exactly what evidence would cause him to abandon the downside view.
He described (C4) the condition under which he would reverse his position: if a clear five-wave count develops with meaningfully high volume accompanying the upward move, he said he would change his stance. He stated explicitly that he is not dogmatic about being right, and that if the evidence points the other way, he will say so publicly. He said there is currently not even 1% of that evidence in place, which is why he continues to hold the bearish reading.
He said the alternate bullish scenario would require the overall corrective sequence to resolve cleanly upward into a confirmed new impulse structure. Until that structure appears — complete with the volume signature that healthy bull markets generate — he said he does not have grounds to endorse the bullish case.
He recommended that traders who feel compelled to buy Bitcoin now do so in stages rather than all at once. The reasoning he offered is that the probability of further downside is higher than a sustained recovery from current levels, so spreading purchases across multiple price levels reduces the risk of being fully committed at the wrong moment.
Summary: Caution, Conditions, and the Wait for Wave Three of Three
Kim said that if Bitcoin falls below the 81,000-dollar ETF cost basis, investors facing losses will sell.
He believes the medium-to-long-term buying opportunity lies in the 40,000 to 50,000 dollar zone, though he did not state this as a precise target or connect the breakdown of any single level directly to that range as an immediate destination.
He preserved his uncertainty openly. He acknowledged that the bullish analyst he referenced has a credible following and has been correct before, and he specified the exact condition — a clear five-wave count with strong volume — that would lead him to reverse his view.
For traders navigating this environment, Kim’s advice was consistent: if you must buy, do so gradually, because the downside probability remains elevated in his reading, and dollar-cost averaging across a range of prices is the approach he described as most appropriate given the structural uncertainty.
He does not predict with certainty. He reads evidence, states conditions, and updates when those conditions change.
Full video analysis: https://www.youtube.com/live/WuRvYHXaODg?si=ohrRwL-vXERdD2DY
