Bitcoin Slides Below 2024 Election Day Level as ETF Outflows, Macro Risks Sap ‘Trump Trade’ Momentum

Meta Description: Bitcoin fell below its 2024 election day mark, briefly under $60,000, with BTC now nearly 52% off its peak as ETF outflows and macro risks bite.

Bitcoin’s post‑election rally has lost altitude. The largest cryptocurrency slipped below its November 2024 U.S. election day level this week, briefly falling under $60,000 for the first time since 2024, before last changing hands near $60,619. The move places BTC roughly 12.6% beneath its November 5, 2024 closing mark around $69,355 and nearly 52% down from its all‑time high, highlighting fading momentum in the so‑called “Trump Trade” that once tied crypto gains to expectations of a friendlier policy backdrop.

Market Movement

The retracement caps a dramatic swing that began when Bitcoin was bid up into and after the 2024 vote. Data show BTC closed near $67,793 the day before ballots were cast. It set a fresh record above $75,000 on election day itself as traders priced in a second Trump administration and the prospect of more permissive crypto policy. The rally extended into early 2025, with Bitcoin reaching about $109,000 around inauguration in January as demand surged from spot Bitcoin exchange‑traded funds and risk appetite broadened across digital assets.

Momentum persisted through much of 2025. ETF assets under management expanded from roughly $37 billion in January 2025 to more than $62 billion at the year’s peak, amplifying spot demand. Corporate treasuries added a second structural buyer, as listed firms pursued a digital asset treasury strategy inspired by high‑profile accumulation. In July, Trump Media and Technology Group reported $2 billion combined in Bitcoin and Bitcoin‑related securities, contributing to the sense of institutional endorsement as prices climbed.

That tide turned quickly after Bitcoin topped out near $126,080 in October 2025. Within days, a record liquidation spree of roughly $19 billion washed over the market, knocking BTC from above $121,000 to around $106,000 and exposing the layer of leverage beneath the advance. By year‑end, the price had weakened further to the high‑$80,000s as liquidity thinned and risk budgets tightened.

In early 2026 the market’s tone deteriorated again. January brought more than $1.5 billion in net outflows from Bitcoin ETFs, a stark reversal from 2025’s steady inflows. As winter gave way to spring, macroeconomic and geopolitical uncertainty mounted—particularly surrounding the Iran War—and traders reassessed the likelihood of U.S. rate cuts. With policy easing expectations fading, risk assets lost a key support. By late May, even one of Bitcoin’s most prominent corporate backers trimmed holdings: Strategy, the Bitcoin‑focused company chaired by Michael Saylor, sold 32 BTC for roughly $2.5 million, a modest but symbolically notable move after his earlier exhortations to buy and hold at all costs.

As June opened, Saylor pointed to what he called a “historical” rotation of capital away from crypto and into artificial intelligence—citing more than $4 billion of ETF outflows in less than a month—as a force behind Bitcoin’s slide. Against that backdrop, BTC pierced $60,000 on Friday for the first time since 2024, before stabilizing near $60,619 on Saturday.

Trading Activity

The last 18 months have traced a full market cycle, from breakout to blow‑off to distribution and drawdown. The October 2025 liquidation cascade stands out as a stress point: forced unwinds at scale signaled concentrated leverage in perpetual swaps and futures, while spot liquidity proved insufficient to cushion the drop. Elevated open interest and thin order books can turn otherwise manageable selling into a reflexive slide as price‑sensitive positions exit simultaneously.

ETF flows amplified the cycle on the way up and have since reinforced the turn. When net inflows dominated in 2025, issuers bought spot Bitcoin to create shares, channeling steady demand into the underlying market. The 2026 pivot to redemptions reversed that mechanism. Persistent outflows prompt share cancellations, which can translate into net selling pressure for BTC. The dynamic is mechanical and, during periods of low natural buy‑side liquidity, can overwhelm discretionary bids.

Corporate balance‑sheet activity added another layer of pro‑cyclical demand. The digital asset treasury approach, popularized through highly visible purchases, encouraged other public companies to consider Bitcoin exposure as a strategic reserve. This flow can be long‑dated, but it is not immune to earnings volatility, capital allocation reviews, or changes in risk appetite by boards and investors. The aggregate effect during 2025 was additive to price. In 2026, more cautious stances and a preference for liquidity have reduced that tailwind.

Short‑term trading has reflected the new regime. With spot trending lower, intraday liquidity providers have widened spreads, and momentum systems have leaned short or reduced exposure. Dips below psychologically important levels—such as $60,000—can trigger clustered stops and programmatic selling. The market’s response on Friday and Saturday suggests some buying interest just under that threshold, but the durability of that support remains to be tested amid shifting macro signals and ongoing ETF redemptions.

Investor Sentiment

Sentiment has shifted from the exuberance of late 2024 and early 2025 to one of caution as investors evaluate the durability of policy and structural demand. The “Trump Trade”—the notion that a supportive administration and regulatory clarity would catalyze a multi‑year crypto expansion—delivered substantial gains through early 2025. As of this week, those who chased the theme near its extremes are nursing drawdowns despite a policy environment that is arguably more permissive than in prior cycles.

President Trump recently wrote that he would “never let crypto down,” underscoring the administration’s pro‑digital asset messaging. Yet price is the arbiter, and the market’s decline below the election day close indicates that policy optimism alone has not offset tightening financial conditions, geopolitical stress, and a rotation of capital toward AI‑linked equities. The message from flows is clear: enthusiasm ebbs when cash yields are competitive and uncertainty is elevated.

Broader Market Context

Macro conditions have been pivotal. The early‑2025 boom coincided with expectations of rate cuts and robust risk appetite across assets. As inflation proved sticky and the Iran War raised geopolitical risk premia, markets reassessed the path of monetary policy. Instead of the series of cuts some traders had penciled in, the debate shifted toward the possibility of further tightening or a longer hold at restrictive levels. Such an environment tends to weigh on long‑duration, higher‑volatility exposures, of which Bitcoin is an archetype.

Within crypto, capital appears to be rotating. The AI theme has captured investor imagination and, by Saylor’s account, drawn billions away from digital assets in recent weeks via ETF outflows. This shift can reflect both secular excitement about AI infrastructure and a preference for more liquid, benchmark‑heavy exposures as risk budgets contract. For Bitcoin, the implication is straightforward: when marginal dollars chase another theme, less cash is available to absorb selling pressure or fund new positions.

Leverage also matters. The October 2025 liquidation wave punctured the belief that institutional adoption had permanently dampened volatility. Perpetual swaps and futures remain central to price discovery, and when speculative positioning becomes crowded, shocks cascade. The retracement into year‑end 2025 and the renewed weakness in 2026 illustrate that institutional rails alone do not immunize Bitcoin from cyclical stresses.

Industry Impact

Policy developments have sent mixed signals to builders and investors. The GENIUS Act was signed into law last year, providing regulatory clarity around stablecoin adoption—an important step for on‑chain payments and market plumbing. Elsewhere, a proposed U.S. Bitcoin reserve is progressing at a “deliberate” pace, and the industry’s sought‑after Clarity Act—broader market structure legislation—remains distant from enactment after clearing a committee vote in May. The legislative trajectory points to incremental progress but not a comprehensive framework on a short timetable.

At the corporate level, the digital asset treasury trend brought Bitcoin further into mainstream finance. The disclosure that Trump Media and Technology Group added $2 billion in BTC and Bitcoin‑linked securities in July signaled that treasury adoption had moved beyond early pioneers and into companies with sizable public profiles. That said, the cycle’s turn has invited boards to revisit risk policies, stress‑test marks, and reassess allocation sizing against competing capital demands.

For asset managers, ETF dynamics have become a central business reality. Inflows during 2025 not only expanded fees and AUM, they also served as a key conduit of price support. The swing to outflows in 2026 has pressured issuers to sharpen marketing, product education, and distribution while traders monitor creations and redemptions for signals about next‑day spot flows. The rise of ETF‑driven price microstructure is now a defining feature of Bitcoin’s market.

What This Means for Crypto Markets

Near term, Bitcoin’s ability to hold the $60,000 region will shape tactical positioning. A sustained break below that handle risks unlocking further systematic selling, as risk models recalibrate and options dealers adjust hedges. Conversely, stabilization above it would give room for mean‑reversion strategies to re‑enter and for discretionary buyers to accumulate on weakness. In either case, ETF flows are likely to remain the bellwether for demand, with daily prints serving as a high‑frequency gauge of investor appetite.

Liquidity is the second pillar to watch. Depth deteriorated into the fall 2025 selloff and has yet to fully recover. Thin books turn even modest outflow‑driven supply into outsized moves, raising the probability of stop‑driven extensions. Market makers typically rebuild depth as volatility declines and two‑way interest returns; until then, traders should expect wider spreads and greater slippage outside of core trading hours.

Policy remains a swing factor, though its impact is uneven across time horizons. The stablecoin clarity embedded in the GENIUS Act may facilitate incremental adoption and lower friction for fiat‑to‑crypto conversion, supporting volumes over time. Yet the slower progress of broader legislation and the measured pace of any U.S. Bitcoin reserve build mean headline catalysts are less likely to deliver immediate, durable bid support absent cooperation from macro conditions.

From a portfolio perspective, the past two years underscore that Bitcoin’s regime is still cyclical, even with institutional rails in place. Structural demand from ETFs and corporate treasuries can amplify trends but does not eliminate drawdowns driven by leverage unwinds, policy shifts, or risk‑free rate repricing. Risk management—position sizing, collateral quality, and an awareness of forced‑flow dynamics—remains central to navigating crypto allocations.

Conclusion

Bitcoin’s break below its 2024 election day level—punctuated by a brief trip under $60,000—marks a clear inflection in the narrative that powered the market through late 2024 and much of 2025. The “Trump Trade” carried BTC to successive highs, culminating near $126,080 last October, supported by surging ETF demand and an embrace of digital asset treasuries. Since then, a record liquidation shock, the pivot to ETF outflows, and a tougher macro setting have eroded those gains, leaving the asset nearly 52% off its peak as of Saturday.

Policy support has not vanished. The GENIUS Act provides a foundation for stablecoin integration, and officials signal an openness to digital assets that contrasts with earlier cycles. But policy alone cannot offset the gravitational pull of higher yields, geopolitics, and shifting capital priorities. For now, the market’s message is pragmatic: watch the flows, respect the levels, and assume that structural buyers will matter most when macro and micro conditions align in their favor.