Many selloff threats are reported just before the opposite occurs. It is not counterintuitive, it is the influence of the media persuading the gullible public to act in reverse.
For instance, during the weekend many "news" had bearish undertones, but the premises were simply ridiculous or not strong enough to override the desire of people for a continuation. That alone is powerful enough for a surge but sustainability requires more than market sentiment for a real trend to materialize.
There was one news that had ambiguous implications.
A BTC WALLET worth ~1B USD came back to life and has hit the news lately.
Some claim is Nakamoto. I would say, that is irrelevant.
How many wallets were lost since BTC became public? Anyone of them or in aggregate, with a sizable balance (small as 80K BTC, which might have been 40M at 500USD per $BTC in 2015) could have grown as much.
Either they were deliberately kept dormant or they were recently recovered (through forensics or whatever).
The commotion only reflects the price is deemed fragile, since this people assume a selloff will send BTC price back to the 60K levels.
Why would the move be exclusively for selling?
Of course, a trader does not mean to HOLD forever. It means to cash some if not all profits from any given investment when necessary.
However, if anyone means to HOLD, he/she can always go long with units in COIN-M instead of CASH in Spot or USD-M