Bitcoin May Dump to $65K or Below, Spelling Trouble for ETH, XRP, ADA and Other Majors
The cryptocurrency market began December 2025 with a sharp, disorderly move that saw Bitcoin briefly break below $83,000. This decline was not triggered by a single, familiar macroeconomic event but by a confluence of thin liquidity, a weekend scare from Japan, and mounting anxiety over a potential seismic shift in traditional finance's relationship with crypto. At the center of this anxiety is global index provider MSCI Inc., which is considering a methodology change that could exclude companies with heavy cryptocurrency holdings from its major equity indices. This review directly threatens firms like Strategy Inc., collectively holding over $137 billion in digital assets—roughly 5% of all Bitcoin in existence. The mere prospect has traders bracing for forced sell-offs, with analysts warning that a sustained break below key support could see Bitcoin test the $60,000-$65,000 range, dragging major altcoins like Ether (ETH), XRP, Cardano (ADA), Solana (SOL), and BNB Chain's BNB down with it.
On Monday, December 1, 2025, Bitcoin’s price action exemplified a market operating on fragile foundations. After hovering above $85,000 during Asian hours on Tuesday morning, the asset had briefly plunged below $83,000 late Monday. Major altcoins followed suit, showing losses of up to 2%. According to market participants, this drop had "little to do with the usual macro triggers." Instead, it highlighted the market's acute vulnerability to stress in its current state.
Farzam Ehsani, CEO of crypto exchange VALR, pinpointed the cause: “Bitcoin's drop below $90,000 is the result of a collision between the fragile market structure and weak liquidity conditions observed over the weekend.” He elaborated that pressure intensified because “the order book was shallow, and the market lacked sufficient depth to withstand another macroeconomic liquidity shock.” This environment set the stage for a disproportionate reaction to emerging structural concerns, primarily the looming MSCI decision.
The core issue unnerving institutional and retail traders alike is a pending review by MSCI, a leading provider of critical benchmark indices used by trillions of dollars in global investment funds. The firm is reportedly considering excluding companies whose balance sheets are "heavily concentrated in cryptocurrencies" from its global indices. This proposal is not a minor adjustment; it targets a specific cohort of corporate Bitcoin holders.
The companies under scrutiny—including Strategy Inc., Marathon Digital Holdings, Riot Platforms, Metaplanet Inc., and American Bitcoin Corp.—collectively hold digital assets valued at over $137 billion. This sum represents approximately 5% of Bitcoin’s total circulating supply. Their inclusion in major indices has provided a bridge between traditional equity capital and the crypto ecosystem. A reclassification or removal would sever that link, triggering automatic selling by index-tracking funds (ETFs and mutual funds) mandated to replicate the index's composition.
Ehsani explained the mechanism: “Any rule change automatically triggers a review of their holdings, potentially leading to forced sell-offs of these companies’ shares and triggering significant capital flows.” Investors are now preparing for what he describes as “short-term imbalances associated with forced capital flows.” The fear is that selling pressure on these companies' stocks could force them to liquidate portions of their Bitcoin treasuries to manage corporate balance sheets or meet obligations, creating a cascading sell-off in the underlying asset.
To understand the gravity of an MSCI exclusion, one can look at historical precedents in traditional markets where companies were removed from major indices like the S&P 500. Such events typically lead to immediate selling pressure from passive funds, often resulting in a short-term price discount for the affected stock. However, the crypto angle adds several layers of complexity.
First, the concentrated nature of these corporate holdings means that any forced corporate-level selling would hit a Bitcoin market already demonstrating thin liquidity. Second, this event coincides with a period of weakness for Bitcoin, which finished November 2025 down 17.5%, marking one of its largest monthly declines in three years. The psychological impact is potent; the market is attempting to pre-price a potential flood of supply from entities that were once celebrated as diamond-handed institutional adopters.
The technical picture reinforces the fundamental concerns. Analysts note that a sustained break below roughly $80,500 would open the door to a much deeper correction. The next significant technical target watched by traders resides in the $64,000 range.
Ehsani outlined this potential scenario: “If the market continues to decline, Bitcoin could test the $60,000-$65,000 range.” He added a note on potential demand at those levels: “At these levels, major institutional players, including Strategy's potential competitors, could become interested in buying up large volumes of Bitcoin.” This suggests that while the reclassification threat prompts fears of a sharp downturn, it may also establish what long-term investors would consider a compelling valuation floor.
A broad-based Bitcoin sell-off inevitably impacts the wider crypto market. During the Tuesday morning Asian session following Monday’s drop, assets like XRP, Ether (ETH), Cardano’s ADA ($0.3671), Solana’s SOL ($142.50), and BNB Chain’s BNB all registered losses. Their high correlation with Bitcoin in times of stress means they are vulnerable to any extended downturn in the flagship cryptocurrency.
However, not all signals are uniformly negative. Data from U.S.-listed crypto ETFs shows selective institutional interest remains. Solana-focused funds have logged five consecutive weeks of net buying, accumulating more than $600 million in inflows since late October. Similarly, spot XRP ETFs have crossed $666 million in cumulative inflows. These flows indicate that while broad market sentiment is cautious due to the MSCI overhang and macro conditions, targeted investment continues in specific ecosystems based on their unique value propositions and regulatory clarity.
Amidst the fear and uncertainty, on-chain analytics providers offer a marginally comforting data point. Metrics from firms like CryptoQuant and Glassnode suggest that leverage has been steadily draining from the cryptocurrency system. A reduction in leveraged positions (both long and short) eases structural risk by making the market less prone to cascading liquidations during volatility.
However, analysts caution that this deleveraging process has not been sufficient to offset the current macro and index-related uncertainty. The market may be on slightly firmer footing than during previous leverage-fueled crashes, but it remains highly susceptible to exogenous shocks—exactly what an MSCI-driven forced sale would represent.
The current market juncture is defined by a clash between fragile technical structure and a looming fundamental threat from traditional finance rulemakers. The MSCI index review represents a critical test for crypto’s integration into mainstream portfolios. A decision to exclude major corporate holders could validate fears of regulatory skepticism toward concentrated crypto exposure and trigger significant short-term capital outflows.
For investors and traders navigating this environment, several key factors warrant close attention:
While the short-term path appears fraught with volatility driven by potential forced selling, longer-term perspectives remain intact. As Ehsani noted, a significant dip toward $60,000-$65,000 could attract new institutional buyers who have been waiting for a better entry point. The episode underscores that cryptocurrency’s journey toward mainstream adoption will be non-linear, punctuated by moments where legacy financial infrastructure reassesses its relationship with this new asset class. Navigating this requires patience,a focus on robust fundamentals beyond short-term index flows,and an eye on both technical support levels and evolving regulatory frameworks