CryptoQuant CEO Rejects McGlone’s $10K Bitcoin Call

CryptoQuant CEO pushes back on Mike McGlone’s $10K Bitcoin call

Ju’s response came as a direct reply to McGlone on X, where the Bloomberg Intelligence strategist has maintained a bearish Bitcoin outlook. The CryptoQuant founder framed the $10,000 scenario not merely as unlikely but as mathematically inconsistent with observed on-chain data.

Hey Mike

ETFs brought in $58B and treasury companies hold 1.3M BTC. If all of it leaves, on-chain cost basis still puts the floor near $30k.

$10k means MVRV 0.2. Bitcoin's worst bottom was 0.6. You would need 2019 buyers to panic, and they have already survived two 75% crashes. https://t.co/iQHHRVgh2O

— Ki Young Ju (@ki_young_ju) October 16, 2026

Source: @ki_young_ju on X

Ju’s core argument is that even a total unwind of institutional positions, ETF holdings included, would not push Bitcoin to $10,000 because the on-chain cost basis of long-term holders would still anchor the market above $30,000. The disagreement reflects a broader split in analyst opinion between those who see macro headwinds overriding structural Bitcoin demand and those who argue the asset’s holder base has fundamentally changed since prior cycles.

Why the $30K cost basis is central to the rebuttal

The on-chain cost basis, sometimes called realized price, represents the aggregate average acquisition price of coins currently in circulation, weighted by the last time each coin moved. Ju’s claim, made directly in his October 16 post, is that this metric sits near $30,000, establishing a practical price floor because holders at that cost level have already weathered two 75% drawdowns and are unlikely to capitulate at current market prices.

The MVRV ratio, which divides Bitcoin’s current market value by its realized value, is the lens Ju applied to stress-test the $10,000 scenario. He argued that a $10,000 price would produce an MVRV of approximately 0.2, far below the 0.6 reading that represented Bitcoin’s worst historical bottom. According to Ju’s analysis, reaching 0.2 would require 2019-era buyers, who have since survived multiple severe downturns, to panic-sell en masse, a behavioral assumption he characterized as implausible given their track record.

Bitcoin was quoted at $81,540 at the time of publication, with a 24-hour decline of approximately 0.70% and a market capitalization near $1.64 trillion, placing the debated $30,000 and $10,000 scenarios at roughly 63% and 88% below spot, respectively.

The $58B ETF backing cited in the Bitcoin outlook

Ju pointed to $58 billion in cumulative spot Bitcoin ETF inflows as evidence that the institutional demand base underlying Bitcoin’s current price structure is materially different from prior cycles. This figure, which Ju attributed directly in his post, remains unconfirmed by an independently fetchable ETF-flow primary source, as the standard reference page was inaccessible at research time; it should be treated as Ju’s stated figure rather than a separately verified total.

Alongside ETF flows, Ju referenced treasury companies holding approximately 1.3 million BTC. BitcoinTreasuries.net currently displays 1.285 million BTC held across 200 public companies, broadly consistent with Ju’s rounded premise, though the tracker figure reflects current holdings rather than a snapshot from the post date.

Ju’s combined argument, cost basis, treasury scale, and ETF flows, is that even a complete institutional exit would not bring Bitcoin to $10,000 because the on-chain realized price would still prevent that level from being a rational capitulation point. The Crypto Fear and Greed Index stood at 63 (Greed) at the time of publication, suggesting the broader market remains in a risk-on posture that contrasts sharply with the panic scenario McGlone’s bear case would require.

The public exchange between Ju and McGlone reflects a wider debate about whether the entry of regulated institutional vehicles has permanently altered Bitcoin’s downside risk profile, or whether macro forces can still override structural demand. Neither outcome is guaranteed, and Ju’s MVRV-based floor analysis represents his analytical framework, not a mechanically enforced price ceiling.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Cryptocurrency and digital asset markets carry significant risk. Always do your own research before making decisions.