Michael Zagari

Bitcoin: The Intermediate Trend Has Turned. Bitcoin’s weekly chart is one of the best-looking setups in the market. The correction from the 2025 high ran back to the rising 200-week average and held. That long-term trend never broke. Since the June low, the 30-week and 40-week EMAs have turned from down to up, and price has reclaimed them. That is an intermediate trend shift from bearish to bullish, built on an intact secular uptrend. Weekly momentum is confirming, not diverging. The market structure around it is changing at the same time. Genius and tokenization are moving Bitcoin and the broader digital-asset complex out of a pure speculative cycle and into the plumbing of the financial system: regulated stablecoins, tokenized Treasuries, and on-chain settlement. That is a different bid than the last cycle. Yes a Super Cycle. The calendar agrees. We are moving into the strongest stretch of the four-year presidential cycle, the window that has historically carried the best equity returns. The macro tape is turning with it. Trump’s economic policies are showing green shoots: productivity growth, wage growth, and manufacturing job growth, with inflation easing even through the supply shock of tariffs and the oil spike. The Fed tightened into that. That was a policy mistake. Markets are already looking past it. Price held the long-term average, the intermediate averages have flipped higher, the structural bid is improving, the cycle is turning up, and policy is starting to show through. That is a very bullish setup. #Bitcoin

Super Cycle standings in front of us. #Bitcoin $MSTR

The Fed should not tighten into an oil shock Oil is rising because the Iran crisis is not going away. The bond market has responded predictably: higher crude, higher inflation expectations, higher 10-year Treasury yields. From there comes the familiar conclusion: the Federal Reserve must stay hawkish, perhaps even resume rate hikes. That conclusion is wrong. An oil shock is not evidence of excessive domestic demand. It is an externally imposed tax on the economy. It reduces household purchasing power, raises transport and input costs, compresses corporate margins and curbs consumption. The inflation impulse is immediate; the damage to growth follows soon after. This is why monetary policy should not mechanically react to a jump in headline inflation. The Fed cannot drill for oil, secure shipping lanes or resolve a geopolitical crisis. What it can do is weaken housing, capital spending and hiring. Raising rates in response to an energy supply shock would not lower the price of crude. It would simply add a domestic demand shock to an external supply shock. The data already counsel restraint. The latest revision to the JOLTS figures points to a weakening labour market. Core PCE inflation remains tame. These are not conditions that demand another round of monetary punishment. Yet parts of Wall Street, and apparently some within the Fed, remain eager to revive the hiking narrative. The explanation is partly psychological. The inflation trauma of the 1970s has created a bias towards overreaction: every increase in petrol prices is treated as the first step towards an inflationary spiral. But this is not the 1970s. There is no broad wage indexation, no evidence of uncontrolled core inflation and no clear sign that inflation expectations have become unanchored. The more plausible risk is that consumers, already facing expensive credit and higher living costs, pull back. Credit markets are not yet flashing alarm. BBB option-adjusted spreads remain low, suggesting investors see limited immediate distress. But that is hardly an argument to test the system with more rate hikes. It is a sign that financial conditions have not yet cracked, not that they cannot. The Fed should resist the temptation to validate the bond market’s crude inflation story. Oil is a growth shock dressed up as inflation. Treating it as a reason to tighten would be policy error masquerading as prudence.