#比特币宏观表现 Seeing the differing views between Tom Lee and Sean Farrell, I actually think this is a positive sign. It reminds me of the 2017 cycle when institutions were just entering the market—back then, the debates between analysts were much more intense.

Different analytical frameworks, different client bases, naturally lead to different strategies. Tom Lee caters to large institutional capital with only 1-5% BTC and ETH allocation, focusing on long-term structural trends and disciplined positioning; Sean Farrell targets professional clients with crypto allocations exceeding 20%, needing to outperform the market through cycle trading. This essentially reflects the current multi-tiered differentiation in institutional investment.

What's interesting is that they actually share consensus on one critical judgment—Bitcoin will challenge new highs before year-end. The disagreement is only on timing: one says late January 2026, the other suggests it might dip to 6-6.5k first before rallying. From a historical cycles perspective, this kind of timing divergence is actually quite common.

What strikes me most is that whenever we discuss "perfect pricing," that's often the most dangerous moment. Sean's point about current market pricing being nearly perfect while risks persist—that's a strong warning signal. Government shutdown, Fed leadership change, miner pressure, early holder selling pressure—these variables do exist.

Anyone who's been through several cycles understands: the hardest part isn't predicting direction, it's controlling risk and waiting for confirmation signals. The fact that institutional voices diverge actually means the market is moving from single narratives toward multi-dimensional analysis. That's true maturity.