In a conversation with Dean Chen, Analyst at Bitunix, we discussed key macroeconomic and crypto market developments after a week of increased volatility and policy speculation.
With U.S. private payroll growth missing expectations and U.S. President Trump doubling down on calls for rate cuts, Chen provided thoughtful insights into how these dynamics could impact Bitcoin (BTC) and other digital assets. As markets weigh the prospect of a Fed pivot against rising recession risks, Chen outlined how sentiment-driven price moves could either boost or destabilize crypto in the short term.
We also explored Bitcoin’s evolving role during economic downturns, Ethereum’s (ETH) relative underperformance, and what’s really behind the recent institutional-led crypto rally.
Chen broke down the conditions needed to support bullish BTC forecasts, the significance of crypto ETFs, and the trade-offs between direct asset ownership and traditional vehicles.
As regulatory momentum builds in Washington and state-backed stablecoins emerge, Chen’s analysis helps clarify how Bitunix and the broader market are preparing for a new era of institutional integration and policy clarity.
Below is the full Q&A with Dean Chen.
Editor’s note: This interview was conducted prior to the release of the U.S. non-farm payrolls report referenced in the first question.
crypto.news: The US labor market is flashing signs of cooling, private payrolls rose just 37,000 in May vs. 110,000 expected (a two-year low). This weakness has even prompted U.S. President Donald Trump to renew pressure on the Fed for rate cuts. If the upcoming non-farm payrolls report this Friday also dramatically undershoots expectations, what impact do you anticipate on Bitcoin and the broader crypto market? Would another weak jobs print prove to be a major catalyst for crypto on hopes of an earlier Fed pivot, or could it spook investors about the economy and actually hurt risk assets like crypto in the short term?
Dean Chen: If the data shows weakness, it could temporarily boost market expectations of an early Fed rate cut, as lower rates typically increase liquidity and enhance the appeal of risk assets, thereby driving crypto prices higher.
However, overly weak data could also trigger concerns about the overall health of the economy, potentially signaling a recession risk and prompting investors to shift toward safer assets. As such, the market reaction could be mixed. In this context, if markets believe the Fed will act quickly to support the economy, optimism around a “Fed pivot” may dominate sentiment, pushing crypto prices upward.
CN: Trump argues the U.S. economy is in a “downward spiral”, pushing for immediate rate cuts. Markets are already pricing in at least one Fed rate cut by September. If the economy does slip toward recession, do you expect Bitcoin to behave more like digital gold (rallying as a safe haven) or like a high-risk asset (falling alongside stocks)? In 2022, crypto tumbled during recession fears despite high inflation, which challenged the “inflation hedge” thesis. Has Bitcoin proven itself yet as a recession-resistant asset, or is its fate still tied to economic growth and liquidity?
DC: Bitcoin has so far behaved more like a high-risk asset than a safe-haven “digital gold” during economic downturns. The experience of 2022 showed that even amid high inflation, crypto assets fell sharply, challenging the narrative of Bitcoin as an “inflation hedge.”
Bitcoin’s value fluctuations are closely tied to global liquidity, investor risk appetite, and economic growth. In times of economic contraction, investors typically turn to cash or traditional safe havens like gold and the U.S. dollar, rather than high-volatility assets like Bitcoin, indicating it has yet to prove itself as a recession-resistant asset.
CN: We’ve seen extremely bullish calls from some market pundits calling for Bitcoin to hit $200,000 by the end of the year. Fundstrat’s Tom Lee goes even higher (although he always seemed to be an outlier) at $250,000 due to expanding liquidity and the post-halving supply squeeze. Do you agree with these optimistic targets? What fundamental drivers would need to materialize to justify Bitcoin climbing to ~$150,000+
DC: While a year-end Bitcoin price target of $200,000 or even $250,000 is exciting, I believe we should evaluate its feasibility with caution. To achieve a price above $150,000, several fundamental drivers must align.
First, sustained institutional inflows—especially consistent net inflows into spot Bitcoin ETFs—are crucial to support prices. Second, a pivot by global central banks toward monetary easing would inject liquidity into markets, favoring risk assets like Bitcoin. Additionally, the post-halving supply squeeze, if met with stable or growing demand, would further lift prices.
The macroeconomic environment also plays a vital role. A “soft landing” scenario—where inflation is under control, economic growth slows, and the Fed cuts rates without triggering a recession—would be ideal for Bitcoin. On the regulatory front, clear and innovation-friendly crypto regulations in major economies would attract more traditional capital into the market.
Lastly, technological advancements within the Bitcoin network and broader crypto ecosystem—such as greater adoption of the Lightning Network and the growth of DeFi applications—will increase Bitcoin’s utility and long-term value. While the outlook is optimistic, it should be approached with measured expectations.
CN: While Bitcoin is still within striking distance of its all-time highs, Ethereum is still 40–50% below its record peak. Ethereum is down ~23% year-to-date despite the broader crypto recovery. Why do you think ETH has underperformed BTC in this cycle? Is it simply lagging and poised for a catch-up rally, or are there fundamental factors, like the post-Merge shift to staking, regulatory concerns around deeming ETH a security, competition from other L1s/L2s, that are keeping Ethereum’s gains more muted? Furthermore, with Ethereum’s network upgrades ongoing, what’s your outlook for ETH for the rest of the year?
DC: Bitcoin, being the largest and most liquid cryptocurrency, typically attracts capital first during market upswings and serves as a “market indicator.” Ethereum often lags behind and catches up later once Bitcoin’s momentum is established.
Following Ethereum’s Merge and transition to a Proof-of-Stake model, a large volume of ETH has been staked, reducing circulating supply and temporarily limiting price flexibility. This has likely led some speculative capital to flow into assets with higher short-term upside.
On the regulatory front, uncertainty over whether ETH will be classified as a security by the U.S. SEC has suppressed institutional demand. Competition is another factor. Other Layer 1s (like Solana and Avalanche) and Layer 2 solutions (such as Arbitrum and Optimism) offer lower fees and higher throughput, diverting users and developers.
Despite these headwinds, Ethereum’s long-term outlook remains strong. Its ongoing upgrades are significantly reducing Layer 2 transaction costs and enhancing scalability, reinforcing its network utility. Ethereum remains the backbone of DeFi and NFTs, backed by a vibrant developer ecosystem. As the market recovers, these use cases will continue driving ETH demand.
In summary, Ethereum has long-term growth potential supported by its technical innovation, robust ecosystem, and improving scalability. If bullish sentiment persists, ETH may eventually follow BTC toward new highs.
CN: We now have a plethora of crypto ETFs on the market, including a new Trump-branded “Truth Social Bitcoin ETF”. To what extent do you think the recent Bitcoin rally has been driven by institutional investors allocating via ETFs and other vehicles, versus retail traders? Do you think institutional adoption is reaching a tipping point that fundamentally changes market dynamics?
DC: The recent Bitcoin rally has been largely driven by institutional investors allocating through ETFs and other structured products, rather than by retail traders alone. Institutional adoption is indeed approaching a critical inflection point. Increasing numbers of traditional asset managers, hedge funds, and even corporations are incorporating Bitcoin into their portfolios or balance sheets.
This institutional capital not only helps stabilize market volatility but also strengthens Bitcoin’s legitimacy as an asset class. It marks a profound shift in market structure and sets the foundation for more sustainable long-term growth in the crypto space.
CN: Why might an investor choose direct ownership of Bitcoin or other digital currencies over gaining exposure through ETFs or equities, and how do the trade-offs compare in terms of relative risk profiles, expected returns and correlation to the underlying asset?
DC: Investors who prioritize true ownership, maximum control, and participation in on-chain ecosystems—and who are comfortable with the responsibility of self-custody—typically prefer direct ownership. On the other hand, those who seek exposure through familiar and regulated traditional financial instruments, and who prefer operational simplicity, may opt for ETFs or equities.
Each method has trade-offs: direct ownership offers greater decentralization and autonomy but involves higher custody risk and complexity. ETFs provide convenience and regulatory protections but may carry tracking errors and lack full utility of the underlying digital asset.
CN: After years of uncertainty and enforcement-driven policy, the U.S. is finally seeing moves toward clearer crypto regulation. In late May, lawmakers introduced the bipartisan Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025, which would split oversight between the SEC and CFTC and even provide safe harbors for DeFi protocols. And over at the SEC, the new Chairman Paul Atkins told Congress he will pursue “notice-and-comment” rulemaking (not just lawsuits) to craft “clear rules of the road” for crypto assets. How optimistic are you that we’ll see meaningful regulatory clarity in the near future? If comprehensive legislation like the CLARITY Act advances, and the SEC shifts to formal rulemaking, what impact would that have on the market and on firms like Bitunix? Are investors already pricing in a more friendly regulatory environment under the current administration, or is skepticism still warranted until actual laws and rules take effect?
DC: I remain cautiously optimistic about achieving meaningful regulatory clarity in the U.S. in the near term. The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025 and new policy direction under SEC Chairman Paul Atkins represent strong momentum toward establishing a more defined regulatory framework for digital assets. This would be crucial for fostering innovation, attracting institutional capital, and protecting consumers.
That said, challenges remain. Legislative complexity and diverging stakeholder interests may slow progress, and even after passage, rule implementation could take time.
For platforms like Bitunix, this legislation offers several positives. It would provide legal certainty for digital asset trading, allowing for long-term planning and expansion. Clear regulations would also attract more traditional financial participants, accelerating market growth and ecosystem development.
Although initial compliance costs may rise, this shift would ultimately enhance competitiveness and build trust. Transparent and rigorous regulation would boost Bitunix’s credibility and reputation in the market.
While expectations of friendlier regulation are growing, caution is still warranted. Only once clear and enforceable legal frameworks are in place can the market fully price in the implications.
CN: Stablecoins continue to play a critical role in crypto markets, and now they’re entering mainstream finance. Notably, Circle has filed for an IPO on the NYSE aiming for roughly a $6 billion valuation. At the same time, novel experiments are emerging: the state of Wyoming is launching a fully-reserved, fiat-backed “Wyoming Stable Token” in July, the first state-issued stablecoin in the US. What do these developments signal about the future of stablecoins? Does Circle going public indicate that regulated stablecoin providers will become as common as banks, integrating with traditional markets? How might a government or central-bank-linked stablecoin (whether a state token like WYST or a potential Fed CBDC down the line) compete with private coins like USDC or Tether? And speaking of Tether, it’s still the market’s largest stablecoin, do you see any risks around USDT’s dominance in a more regulated future, or will it continue to thrive despite perennial transparency concerns?
DC: Stablecoins are playing an increasingly vital role in both crypto markets and mainstream finance, signaling their potential to become foundational infrastructure for global payments and settlement. Circle’s IPO highlights how seriously Wall Street now takes regulated stablecoin providers, accelerating the convergence of crypto and traditional finance. Going forward, legitimacy and regulatory compliance will be key drivers of mainstream adoption.
Government- or central bank-issued stablecoins—like WYST or a future Fed CBDC—have sovereign trust advantages and benefit from regulatory clarity, making them easier to integrate into existing financial systems. This presents competitive pressure for private stablecoins like USDC and USDT. To remain competitive, private issuers will need to enhance reserve transparency and innovate in services, particularly in blockchain-native applications and cross-border payments.
Tether, despite being the largest stablecoin, may face regulatory risks if it doesn’t address transparency concerns. In a more regulated environment, USDT will either need to adjust its reserve practices to meet rising disclosure standards or focus on markets with less stringent oversight.
