Why Bitcoin Is Coiled for a Massive Breakout According to Scaramucci

Bitcoin has entered its tightest 5-year volatility band, prompting many to wonder if the asset has lost its power as a macro market signal. Anthony Scaramucci, founder of SkyBridge Capital, sat down on CNBC's Squawk Box recently to tackle this stagnation and explain why a massive breakout is looming. By the end of this video breakdown, you'll know exactly why this grinding market is a classic cyclical setup and what key catalysts could propel the asset past $100,000. But first, we have to look at an ignored cash payout that could trigger the next wave of buying. Let's hear Scaramucci on CNBC uninterrupted, and after that, I'll give you my own reaction breakdown to what he said. >> Uh from the White House uh meeting with crypto executives expected tomorrow to uh Bitcoin prices and the latest on the Clarity Act, we're joined now by Anthony Scaramucci, SkyBridge Capital founder and managing partner. Joins us from Wyoming's Blockchain Symposium. Good morning to you. Um before we get into all of the sort of big policy uh choices and thoughts, I'm just curious what you actually think of Bitcoin and the price of Bitcoin. We used to talk, Anthony, about Bitcoin and whether it was going up or down all the time. It was this um it become sort of our our signal of of a risk-on versus risk-off. And it hasn't really moved much around in quite a while, and I'm curious sort of what you think that means. >> Well, I mean, there's a lot of different interpretations. I mean, I think my basic one is And again, I'll just point out what you're saying is true, Andrew, because it's been 9 weeks where Bitcoin is in the tightest volatility band that it's been in in the last 5 years. So, it really hasn't moved much at all. I mean, we when the war started in February, it was roughly the same price that it is today. So, uh it's been grinding, but I think there's a three things going on. One is a lot of the miners have transferred compute power over to AI, which disrupted the hash rate. I don't want to be overly technical with people, but I think that muted some of the the volatility. The second thing is capital fled the cryptocurrency markets. Uh in addition to Bitcoin, other tokens in the in the in the cryptocurrency markets into AI. And then I think the third thing is if you're a four-year cycle believer like most people are in in crypto, Bitcoin now is getting towards that end of what we would typically see the bear market of Bitcoin in the four-year cycle. So, we're now through 2 years uh and we're about 18 or 19 months away from the next halving. So, though all of those factors I think have muted Bitcoin's price, but I guess the real question is are we still bulls on Bitcoin? And the answer is resoundingly yes. I think as the halving cycle comes in again and we cut the uh supply of coins again, it will tighten uh price and I think you'll see the thing move back up over 100,000. But, it's going to it's going to grind for a while, Andrew, and people don't like that. >> Is there Is there a catalyst though that that would make it move higher? I understand your catalyst is is this is sort of of the supply story on it. But, is there anything else in the in the financing space >> Yeah. >> uh that that that would be a catalyst on the upside? And one of the things that I was going to say might be a catalyst on the downside, but I don't know, is I think there's been more pressure to bear at least thought these days uh around uh quantum computing and the potential for, you know, what I don't Maybe you would disagree with this, but I I keep hearing from people who are now talking more about what that means in cybersecurity and the ability to uh you know, uh potentially uh break some of these algorithms longer term. >> Well, I mean, I'll I'll I'll address that briefly. I think we I think the core developers in Bitcoin will be able to figure that out. There's a lot of different ways that that can be treated. I do understand why that would be an idea of worry for a retail investor that hasn't done as much research on Bitcoin as people at SkyBridge have done. So, I don't I don't see that as the overall risk, but I think you're bringing up a even bigger point. What is the catalyst and I I don't see a near-term catalyst, frankly, other than that supply demand differential. Moreover, I don't think the Clarity Act, should it pass, and maybe it's 50/50 that it will. I mean, that was Senator Tim Scott is here with Senator Cynthia Lummis, and they still believe they can get this passed in September. That might be a tiny catalyst, but I don't see that as big a big catalyst, either. So, so this is a grinding situation, you know. >> why would it be? >> Because this is the this is the bill that the industry has been trying to push forward to try to get some clarity for quite some time. Explain it to the audience. Why I I would have thought that that having this bill would be a big boon to the business. >> Well, I think long-term it would be a very big boon. You have to read through the bill and recognize what's going on, and basically, put simply, there'll be a lot of access opportunities for banks, and there'll be a lot of changes in the way you can hold your Bitcoin in the United States, and it would remove this sort of pendulum swing of regulation between Republican regulation and Democrat regulation. And all those things are good things, but I I again, this is just my opinion. It is a contrarian opinion, by the way. You could bring another person on that say, "Oh, no, the the Clarity Act will be like a rocket ship for Bitcoin." But remember, you know, our team is looking at it every day, and we're looking at the flows, and the good thing about Bitcoin, because it's on the blockchain, you can see all the activity. And so, I'm just saying, yes, if it gets passes, it's great for us long-term, Andrew. And obviously, I really do want to see it pass, but I'm not I'm not the I'm not the permabull where I'm just going to tell you nonsense on television. I I think it will go higher over time as the supply-demand differential changes once again. But again, 37 years doing this, nine bear markets. This is a clear Bitcoin bear market, and yet we've only had a 55% drop in Bitcoin, where in other bear markets, Andrew, you've gotten like a 75-80% drop. So weirdly, you could take a position where that's that's actually a good sign that there's a lot of net buyers going into the next bull phase of Bitcoin. >> Okay, I'm going to throw I don't know if there's going to be a proverbial grenade into this conversation, but as somebody who has been an advocate for crypto for a long time, I'm curious what you made of the headline that World Liberty Financial, which of course uh owned by the Trump family, uh has been conditionally given permission to become a bank. Is that a good thing or bad thing? >> I don't really think that's that big of a grenade. I mean, that was like not even an M-80. I mean, listen, I mean, if they become a bank, it's not really that big of a deal for the overall market. I guess what you have to ask the question of what is the president's family allowed to do and what are they not allowed to do. And whatever my disagreements are with the president, I don't think it's fair to take his family members who are business people and tell them, "Well, you know, your dad's the president, so you can no longer transact in business." So I do not think that that's fair. Having said that, because they are the president's children, it has to be looked at carefully just to make sure that there are not great conflicts of interest. But I I don't like the the nonsense of people being in public service where we've got to extra scrutinize their children. That's That's me. So, I don't know it was sort of an M80. Try another one, Andrew. Get it Get a bigger grenade out. Try another >> I I wasn't I didn't know where you were going to go with it. So, that's why I I I sort of >> No, I did I just I'm a capitalist. >> I understand. >> You know, I can't let you go with this. One of my mentors I love capitalism, you know. >> is whether you think that the crypto community I mean, the idea that a lot of these crypto companies are going to get bank charters and what that ultimately does to the business longer term. >> Well, listen, if the Clarity Act passes, you have money center banks, regional banks, community banks that that will all be in that same position. And so, you know, you know, I'm predicting should Clarity pass, you'll see that convergence. You'll see many of the cryptocurrency companies, you know, I I don't want to speak for Coinbase or others, but I think it would be prudent for them to get banking licenses. And you know, the World Liberty situation could be a tell. They're They're looking at the situation and saying, "Well, maybe maybe this thing passes and we we want to be at the front end of the line to get these these banking licenses in place." >> Andrew Ross Sorkin opened the conversation by pointing out a major shift in how Wall Street views the asset, noting that Bitcoin's price has been stuck in an incredibly tight range and is virtually unchanged since the war in Ukraine broke out. He pressed Scaramucci on whether this prolonged flatlining means Bitcoin has lost its spark as a macro indicator. Scaramucci admitted that the volatility squeeze is real, but argued that this quiet phase is actually the calm before a massive storm, driven by three major structural shifts. Sorkin pushed on what is actually holding the price down, which led Scaramucci to reveal the first major technical shift. The quiet migration of Bitcoin miners into artificial intelligence. The explosive AI boom has created an unprecedented bottleneck in data center capacity and power grids. And miners already possess the pre-approved grid connections and heavy infrastructure that AI giants desperately need. Scaramucci highlighted the company Iris Energy, ticker symbol IREN, which has actively pivoted to hosting high-performance computing alongside its traditional mining operations. By leasing their power capacity to AI firms, these miners are securing predictable high-margin cash flows rather than relying solely on volatile coin prices to pay their bills. What stands out to me here is how this fundamentally alters the supply dynamics of the entire network. Historically, miners were forced sellers who had to dump their newly minted coins on the market to cover electricity bills. If AI contracts are now subsidizing those operations, that persistent selling pressure evaporates, leaving the spot market much tighter than most observers realize. That structural supply squeeze naturally led Sorkin to raise the next obvious question. If the plumbing is changing, why hasn't the price reacted yet? Sorkin challenged Scaramucci on the spot ETFs, asking why the price has remained stuck if these multi-billion dollar funds were supposed to be such a massive catalyst. Scaramucci's response was a master class in how wealth management actually works. He explained that major wirehouses like Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, and Wells Fargo do not let advisors buy new asset classes immediately. There is a grueling process of compliance reviews, risk management training, and platform integration, meaning that for the first 6 months, the vast majority of financial advisors in the United States were literally forbidden from recommending these ETFs. This is where I think the retail crowd completely missed the plot. They expected a massive wave of capital on day one, but institutional wealth moves at a glacial pace. Once these platforms open up, a simple 1 to 3% portfolio allocation to improve the sharp ratio becomes a fiduciary standard. It is not speculative trading. It is structural asset allocation targeting over $40 trillion of wealth managed by registered investment advisors. This slow-moving institutional wave is powerful, but Sorkin wanted to know about more immediate shocks, which brought the conversation to that highly anticipated FTX payout we teased earlier. If that surprised you as much as it surprised me, let me know with a like and subscribe to the channel. Sorkin asked how the resolution of the FTX bankruptcy would impact market liquidity given the scale of the collapse. Scaramucci highlighted this as a massive underappreciated catalyst, explaining that the FTX estate is preparing to return roughly $16 billion to creditors. Crucially, because of bankruptcy rules, these payouts are being distributed in cash, not the original digital assets. This is a fascinating setup because these creditors are not conservative bond investors. They are crypto-native funds and high-net-worth individuals who were deeply embedded in this space before the collapse. When they get their cash, they are highly unlikely to let it sit in traditional savings accounts. A massive percentage of that $16 billion is going to be recycled straight back into Bitcoin and liquid altcoins, creating a concentrated burst of buying pressure. But what happens if the broader economy starts to crack? Sorkin steered the discussion toward the macro picture, pressing Scaramucci on how Bitcoin can survive a worsening debt crisis. When Sorkin brought up the ballooning United States national debt, Scaramucci did not flinch, arguing that the structural incentives in Washington always favor spending and printing money, regardless of which party is in power. He explained that as the money supply expands and the purchasing power of the dollar declines, Bitcoin's fixed supply of 21 million coins becomes a highly attractive, decentralized, non-sovereign store of value. What I find compelling here is that Bitcoin isn't just an asset going up in value. It is a global scoreboard measuring the debasement of fiat currency. When global debt levels compound unsustainably, holding an asset with a mathematically capped supply isn't a speculative bet. It is a hedge against systematic currency devaluation. This macro pressure is undeniable, but Sorkin quickly countered by pointing out the regulatory wall that has held the industry back for years. Sorkin pressed him on the hostile regulatory environment, specifically the aggressive enforcement strategy led by SEC Chairman Gary Gensler. Scaramucci responded by pointing out that the SEC's strategy of regulation by enforcement has hit a brick wall in the federal courts, which have repeatedly ruled against the agency and forced them to approve the spot ETFs. He noted a major bipartisan shift in Congress where politicians on both sides are realizing that if they do not create a clear regulatory framework, this multi-trillion-dollar industry and its technological innovation will simply migrate offshore to Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. Where I land on this is that the threat of losing financial technology innovation is a powerful motivator for Washington. Bipartisan support is growing because politicians hate losing tax revenue and technological dominance to other jurisdictions. Once we get comprehensive legislation, conservative institutional capital that has been sitting on the sidelines due to regulatory uncertainty will finally have the green light to enter. This regulatory thaw is a long-term game, but Sorkin wanted to bring the focus back to the immediate term, questioning whether the historical patterns of Bitcoin still hold true today. Sorkin questioned whether the historical post-halving patterns are still relevant or if this cycle has broken the mold due to the early ETF inflows. Scaramucci urged investors to look closely at the geometry of previous cycles in 2012, 2016, and 2020. He explained that the halving itself is never an immediate catalyst. Instead, it is always followed by a grueling 4-to-6-month period of sideways trading that flushes out leverage, tests the resolve of weak hands, and builds a solid foundation. This post-halving grind is exactly where we find ourselves today. The daily supply of new coins has been permanently cut in half, but the market takes time to digest this structural shift. It is a classic cyclical setup that is coiled like a spring, and history suggests the quietest periods of volatility are precisely when the foundation for the next major leg up is being laid. Sorkin then pushed the conversation into the realm of geopolitics, asking how far this adoption could actually go at the state level. When asked about nation-state adoption, Scaramucci pointed to countries like El Salvador integrating Bitcoin and politicians openly discussing strategic national reserves. He explained that this triggers a powerful game theory among sovereign states. This is the ultimate escalation of stakes. Once sovereign entities begin exploring digital assets, the geopolitical risk of holding zero Bitcoin becomes significantly higher than the risk of owning a small allocation. It shifts the asset from a speculative tech play to a strategic geopolitical tool. But Sorkin wasn't entirely convinced, throwing a final crucial counterargument onto the table. What happens during a severe systemic market crash? Sorkin raised the threat of a global liquidity crisis or credit crunch, arguing that a panic would force investors to sell everything, including Bitcoin, to raise cash. Scaramucci acknowledged that in a severe liquidity shock, correlations go to one, and everything gets sold. However, he made a vital distinction between a temporary liquidity crisis and a solvency crisis. This is a critical point that many investors overlook. During a panic, Bitcoin will get caught in the sell-off as market participants cover margin calls, but the underlying network remains completely unaffected. The decentralized ledger continues to produce blocks every 10 minutes, completely unfazed by Wall Street's distress. It is a temporary price dislocation, not a fundamental failure of the asset. As the sit-down wrapped up, it became clear that the current sideways grind is hiding a massive structural convergence of capital, regulation, and sovereign interest. The real question is no longer whether Bitcoin will survive, but how quickly the legacy system will be forced to adapt to its presence. As we head into the final months of this cycle, the pieces are on the board and the macro clock is ticking. I appreciate you watching. Give the video a like, subscribe to the channel, and send it to someone working through the same question. See you next time.