Long-term bullish macro analyst Luke Gromen significantly reduced his Bitcoin holdings by the end of 2025, not due to sentiment or price, but because of a change in his assessment of the macro environment “sequence.” He believes we are moving away from a world prioritized by finance and into an era of re-emerging realpolitik. This article is organized, compiled, and written by Cognitive Alchemy.

(Previous context: Grayscale Outlook 2026 White Paper: Top 10 Cryptocurrency Investment Opportunities and Pseudo Hotspots)
(Additional background: Sentora Research: Bitcoin expected to challenge $150,000 in 2026! Three major catalysts are brewing)

Table of Contents

• 1. What I got right before, and what I got wrong
• 2. Why Bitcoin becomes fragile in deflation
• 3. What truly changed my judgment—AI and robots
• 4. I’m not negating Bitcoin, but correcting the “sequence”
• 5. Why I am more willing to hold silver
• 6. Behind this, a larger structural change

In mid to late November 2025, Luke Gromen, a macro analyst who has been long-term bullish on Bitcoin and gold, sold most of his Bitcoin positions. This was not a complete liquidation but a clear phased reduction, sparking considerable discussion in the market.

Recently, in his final video of 2025, Luke systematically explained the thought process behind this decision for the first time.

He discussed not just Bitcoin, but a set of interconnected judgments: why he remains cautious on Bitcoin in the short term, why he still favors precious metals, and how he interprets the emerging “multipolar world.”

These perspectives may seem scattered, but they point to the same core issue: The macro environment we are familiar with is changing.

Over the past thirty years: in the US market, government bonds won, Wall Street won, financial asset holders won; meanwhile, manufacturing, industrial capacity, and workers have been long suppressed.

Starting in 2025, as geopolitical competition, supply chain security, and industrial fundamentals become hard constraints, the policy objective function of the US government is being forced to change.

We are leaving a “finance-first” world and entering a “reality politics return” era.

You may completely disagree with Luke’s short-term outlook on Bitcoin—this is not a black-and-white question. But this macro signal deserves serious attention from all long-term investors:

This world is no longer one where financial assets naturally thrive.

Because of this, it’s necessary to remind ourselves of an often-overlooked point: Long-term investing does not mean always being in the market at every stage.

Sometimes, true long-term means knowing when to step back, retain judgment, and avoid letting short-term volatility force irreversible decisions at the wrong time.

If these discussions help you view the market more calmly in the coming period, then they have served their purpose.

The rest depends on your own rhythm.

Below is a translation of Luke’s own words from his latest video, hoping to inspire you.

This is my last public video update for 2025.

Honestly, this year has been quite exhausting; at times it feels like “aging according to a dog’s years.” But because of that, I want to clarify some key judgments rather than leave room for misunderstandings.

The most frequently asked question lately is: Why did you sell most of your Bitcoin in the short term?

Let me clarify the most important point upfront: I have not liquidated my Bitcoin holdings. I remain long-term bullish on it.

But over the past month or so, I did sell my “biggest” holdings. The reason is not emotion or price, but a change in my assessment of the “sequence.”

1. What I got right before, and what I got wrong

I have long believed that Bitcoin is the last “liquidity smoke alarm” still functioning properly within the global financial system. When liquidity tightens, it tends to react earliest. This has been repeatedly validated over the past few years.

However, I must admit one thing: my previous judgment of Bitcoin’s role in a “deflationary environment” was wrong.

I originally thought that in deflation, it would act more like a “neutral reserve asset.” But reality has shown me: when deflation truly arrives, Bitcoin’s trading behavior resembles that of a high Beta tech stock.

This is not a matter of stance; it’s a fact.

2. Why does Bitcoin become fragile in deflation?

The reason is quite simple, though many are reluctant to see it from this perspective.

We are now in a highly leveraged global economy. In such a system, any asset can be understood within the “capital structure” framework.

When liquidity is abundant and asset prices rise → the “equity layer” at the bottom of the capital structure performs best.

When deflation occurs → the equity layer is hit first and hardest.

In 2008, the equity layer of CDOs and CLOs disappeared in this way.

And I am increasingly convinced that: Bitcoin, in the current system, is precisely the “equity layer.”

This is not a devaluation; it’s a realistic assessment of its position.

3. What truly changed my judgment—AI and robots

If it were just a typical economic downturn, I might not have sold.

What made me reconsider the sequence was seeing AI and robots creating an “exponential” deflationary force.

This round of deflation has three characteristics:

• It stems from technological efficiency, not demand cycles
• It begins to materially impact employment, especially among young people
• It spreads very quickly

In this environment, any policy less than “nuclear-level money printing” is effectively tightening.

And in a tightening environment, what is hit first? Still the equity layer.

This is the core reason I turned cautious on Bitcoin and sold most of my holdings in the short term.

4. I’m not negating Bitcoin, but correcting the “sequence”

I still believe: deflation will eventually trigger a crisis, and that crisis will likely force a large-scale monetary response.

But I now think that this step will not come so quickly.

Frankly, I overestimated the speed of policy response. I thought they would act sooner, but they haven’t, and I no longer believe they will act very soon.

So for me, it’s a matter of sequence: Before policy truly shifts, before a “nuclear response” appears, I prefer to leave the most fragile part of the capital structure first, wait until prices reflect reality more fully, then re-enter.

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe I “calculated too precisely.” But this is my most honest judgment at the moment.

5. Why am I more willing to hold silver?

Silver is not an emotional judgment but a structural one.

What I see is: industrial demand continues to rise, supply-side capacity is almost unable to expand rapidly, and even if prices rise, it’s hard to quickly generate effective supply responses.

Unless we use a deep recession to destroy demand. But if that happens, the world would revert even faster to the “crisis—money printing” path.

From this perspective, silver’s logic is more direct and straightforward.

6. Behind this, a larger structural change

What I want to clarify this time is not just Bitcoin or silver.

What I truly want to say is: We are leaving a “finance-first” world and entering a “reality politics return” world.

In the past thirty years: government bonds won, Wall Street won, financial asset holders won; meanwhile, manufacturing, industrial capacity, and workers have been long suppressed.

Now, as national competition, supply chain security, and industrial fundamentals become hard constraints, policy objectives are being forced to change.

This does not mean a utopia of low interest rates and a weak dollar. It’s more likely to be a world that is: more unstable, more friction, less “elegant” but more real.

In conclusion: All I can do is clearly articulate what I see.

I know these judgments are not popular—especially when emotions remain highly optimistic.

But I have always believed: More important than making people feel comfortable is explaining the logic clearly.

I still respect Bitcoin’s long-term significance and am preparing for that “true turning point.”

But now, I choose to step aside first, to see clearly where this round of deflation truly leads.

This is the most honest explanation I can give at the end of 2025.