I forecasted Bitcoin dropping to $49k this year, and January presented several alarming warning signs.

My $49k Bitcoin bearish outlook, a January update, the infrastructure is signaling while the price declines

I developed my medium-term $49,000 bearish outlook in late November based on one straightforward concept: Bitcoin continues to operate in cycles, and the next genuine “this is the low” moment is typically reached when miner economics and flows align concurrently.

As of January 30, 2026, the truthful update is this: the factors I monitor appear more strained than when I first shared my analysis, and the market has not produced the kind of panic price action that brings these factors to the forefront for everyone.

Somewhat ironically, my ‘medium-term bearish thesis’ was meant to be ultimately bullish. The premise was that we might experience a brief, intense bear market with maximum pain followed by a prolonged, multi-year bull market. However, the current price levels do not align with the signals we are observing.

Related Reading

Akiba's medium term $49k Bitcoin bear thesis – why this winter will be the shortest yet

Short-lived bears, sharper support levels: why $49k could appear early, and what could shift the narrative.

Nov 24, 2025 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

Bitcoin is currently trading around the low $80,000s (having dipped to $81,000 overnight) as I write this, which indicates that my high-$40k target has yet to come into focus.

This disconnect is the crux of the situation.

Because beneath the surface, the components of the system that ensure Bitcoin’s security and those that move institutional size are behaving as if winter has already arrived.

The winter sentiment is stemming from fees, not the chart

Let’s begin with the security budget, as that was my initial “fragility” assertion.

On January 29, miners generated approximately $37.22 million in daily revenue.

On that same day, total daily transaction fees amounted to around $260,550.

Calculating that reveals the underlying mood: fees represent roughly 0.7% of miner revenue.

This is not indicative of “weak fees,” but rather “fees are essentially nonexistent,” given that the fee market is contributing almost nothing to the daily cost of securing the blockchain.

Even the current mempool situation looks lethargic. The projected next-block median fee rate is approximately 0.12 to 0.14 sat/vB at this moment.

So, when individuals inquire why I keep returning to miner economics, it is because this is what a failing fee floor looks like in real time. The network relies on issuance, issuance diminishes as scheduled, and everything else must compensate later.

The ETF window has been a continuous leak, with a few harsh gulps

The second aspect of my framework involved flow elasticity, the notion that the ETF era offers a clear, mechanical way to observe changes in risk appetite.

In January, that elasticity has been trending negatively.

On Farside, the past few weeks have shown several significant outflow readings, including -$708.7M on January 21 and -$817.8M on January 29.

Total net flows are also negative at -$1.095B year-to-date. This is more significant than any single day, as it alters the psychology surrounding dips. In the softer landing scenario of my thesis, the market receives support from consistent dip buying through the ETF channel. Currently, that channel has been draining liquidity.

There were notable green days earlier this month as well, January 13 at +$753.8M and January 14 at +$840.6M, which are genuine, but the late-month flow figures have been the kind one can feel on a trading desk.

If you trade professionally, you know this sensation: prices hold steady, the internals begin to decay, and everyone continues to anticipate the moment the chart finally reflects what the infrastructure has been indicating.

Hashrate is fluctuating, miners are adjusting, and that adaptation alters behavior

Another aspect of the setup is miner elasticity.

Hashrate remains substantial, but it has been volatile. On January 29, the daily average is roughly 901 EH/s, down from earlier peaks this month.

This alone does not signify capitulation, and I am not attempting to impose a dramatic narrative onto typical fluctuations. It does support the broader argument that miners now have more adjustments to make.

The most crucial adjustment is one that was seldom discussed in earlier cycles: AI and HPC hosting.

When a miner enters into long-term compute agreements, that operation begins to resemble less of a pure BTC margin machine and more of a power, land, and infrastructure operator that also mines Bitcoin.

TeraWulf highlighted this shift when it announced two 10-year HPC colocation agreements with Fluidstack for over 200 MW, with Google backing a substantial portion of the obligations and acquiring an equity stake, according to the company’s own announcement.

Riot has been exploring a similar path, including a formal assessment to potentially repurpose significant capacity for AI and HPC, according to DataCenterDynamics.

This shift is significant for Bitcoin’s market structure as it alters the incentives surrounding hashrate during downturns.

A miner with an additional revenue stream may act differently under pressure. They might reduce or redirect capacity without immediate existential threats, conserve liquidity for expansions, sell BTC more mechanically to finance capital expenditures, or simply stop prioritizing marginal hashprice as a traditional miner once did.

This is the elasticity I was referring to, and it is beginning to manifest in the tone of the data even while prices remain elevated.

So, what is the “status of the thesis” at present?

Here’s the clearest way I can summarize it in one breath.

The fee floor appears broken, ETF flows have been risk-off for weeks, and the miner business model is evolving in a manner that could amplify reflexive behavior during downturns.

These are the conditions I outlined.

The missing element is what people recall, the chart declining into the zone where panic transitions into inventory redistribution.

Bitcoin at $82k does not compel anyone to make that decision. A drop into the $40ks would.

This is why this update is less focused on price targets and more on tension. The system is accumulating tension.

Scenario	Bottom Price (USD)	Timing Window	Path Shape	Key Triggers Into Low (Jan 30, 2026 status)
Base	49,000	Q1–Q2 2026	2–3 sharp declines, basing	Hashprice spot below $40/PH/day Fee% of miner revenue < 10% (extreme, ~<1% on latest prints) 20D ETF flows negative (net outflows over the last 20 trading days) “Forwards below $40 for weeks” depends on whether you regard spot as the proxy; forwards have a near-dated hump
Soft-landing	56,000–60,000	H2 2025	Single flush, range	Fee% > 15% sustained (opposite, fees are very low) Stable hashrate (has shown meaningful variance this month) Mixed to positive ETF flows on down days (late-Jan showed heavy outflows)
Deep cut	36,000–42,000	Late 2026–Q1 2027	Waterfall, rapid	Macro risk-off (not a single on-chain metric, mixed signals outside this table) Fee drought (supported by fees and feerates) Miner distress (not “capitulation,” but stress evident through low hashprice) Ongoing ETF outflows (recent window negative, “persistent” over longer horizon still TBD)

The human-interest perspective people overlook, miners are operating two companies simultaneously

When you reduce this to “fees are down,” it sounds like a mere chart note.

In reality, it resembles operators striving to maintain operations, negotiating power contracts, planning expansions, courting AI clients, managing shareholders, and still having to compete in the most cutthroat hash race on the planet.

A low-fee environment not only undermines the security budget, but it compels miners to innovate, and this creativity introduces new behaviors into the market.

The baseline bear scenario I described in November was always about that behavior manifesting concurrently with flow pressure, and then price eventually reacting as it does when leverage and narrative break simultaneously.

At present, two of those levers have already been activated.

What would lead me to conclude that the bear is resolving sooner

I am maintaining my flip-level framework, and I am intentionally keeping it straightforward.

• Fees need to cease being stagnant; the YCharts fee line must establish a legitimate floor relative to the YCharts revenue line.
• ETF flow dynamics need to shift; the Farside table must start showing consistent dip buying again, not late-month air pockets.
• Mempool conditions need to regain vitality, with fee pressure appearing in the mempool medians in a way that indicates genuine settlement demand.

If these conditions materialize while prices remain elevated, the “shortest winter yet” narrative begins to gain traction.

If these remain weak and prices eventually break, the $49k scenario remains valid as a liquidity magnet, because that is where the buyer base typically shifts character.

Where I currently stand

I do not have the dramatic conclusion that every market narrative desires, as the market has not yet provided it.

The infrastructure indicates that winter conditions are already present.

The chart suggests that the crowd has yet to perceive them.

This disparity is what to observe, as such gaps do not usually last indefinitely.

And when they close, they tend to do so rapidly.

The post I predicted Bitcoin falling to $49k this year and January delivered some very concerning red flags appeared first on CryptoSlate.