Bitcoin (BTC) must cost at least $39,000, says a new tool combining two of its most powerful metrics.

In a tweet on Thursday, analyst William Clemente presented the illiquid supply floor chart — and its findings are firmly bullish for BTC.

Bitcoin’s price floor rises and rises

With exchange reserves dwindling and major corporate buy-ins expected to be announced in the coming weeks, analysts are all but guaranteeing BTC price upside.

As Cointelegraph reported, long-term holders are now in possession of more of the supply than at any time since October 2020.

Now, illiquid supply data has been combined with the popular and highly accurate stock-to-flow Bitcoin price model to form a new minimum price for BTC/USD.

As Clemente described, it is “a price floor based on Bitcoin’s real-time scarcity.”

A screenshot of the new chart shows a lower boundary for BTC/USD as being $39,000 as of this week — a level that neatly lines up with current technical predictions of where the pair should bounce in the event of a reversal.

Bitcoin illiquid supply floor chart. Source: William Clemente/Twitter

Bloomberg eyes “significant advance” in 2021

Stock-to-flow, meanwhile, has long demanded stronger performance from Bitcoin spot price, and its creator, PlanB, continues to stick by a $135,000 “worst case scenario” end-of-year close.

Related: BTC holds $48K as Evergrande forms ‘Lehman Brothers moment’ for China

He’s not alone. In its latest research, Bloomberg Intelligence gave renewed credence to $100,000 coming true for BTC/USD in 2021.

“Past Bitcoin trading trends and the crypto’s declining supply vs. mainstream adoption suggest a significant advance in 2021, potentially to $100,000, we believe,” chief analyst Mike McGlone said as part of Twitter comments that echo Clemente’s.

Bitcoin supply data vs. BTC/USD chart. Source: Mike McGlone/Twitter

McGlone said that no fewer than five charts currently point to the magic six figures — one year after Bitcoin first hit a five-figure price tag and never lost it.

Share:

Leave a Reply