The Market Updates

The sequence of Bitcoin’s October crash and January recovery looks like a planned setup, and the data supports it.

Let’s go through it 👇

1) OCTOBER 10: THE TRIGGER

On October 10, MSCI, originally a Morgan Stanley division, announced a proposal to remove Digital Asset Treasury Companies from its global indexes.

That included firms like MicroStrategy and Metaplanet, whose balance sheets hold billions worth of Bitcoin. This wasn’t a small change because MSCI indexes guide trillions of dollars in passive flows.

If those firms were removed:
• Pension funds and ETFs would be forced to sell
• Institutional exposure to Bitcoin would shrink
• Liquidity would tighten sharply

Minutes after the announcement, Bitcoin dropped nearly -$18,000, erasing more than $900 billion from crypto’s total market cap.

2) THEN THE 3-MONTH PRESSURE WINDOW.

The consultation stayed open until December 31, meaning three full months of uncertainty.

That overhang froze demand:

• Passive investors avoided exposure
• Index-linked funds risked forced selling
• Prices stayed weak
• Sentiment collapsed

During this period, Bitcoin dropped about 31%, altcoins even more.
It was the worst quarter for crypto since 2018.

3) JANUARY 1st: SUDDEN PUMP STARS

From Jan 1st, Bitcoin starts pumping without any bullish news, and in the first 5 days of 2026, Bitcoin jumped 8%, that’s a $7300 pump from $87,500 to $94,800.

No one knew why, but somehow the relentless selling stopped, and Bitcoin was printing back-to-back green candles.

These were probably insiders who knew what was coming in the next few days.

4) JANUARY 5th-6th: THE REVERSAL

Then, somehow, in 24 hours, everything flipped.

First, Morgan Stanley filed for its own spot Bitcoin, ETH, and Solana ETFs.

Then, in a few hours, MSCI announced that it would not remove the crypto-heavy companies after all.

The exact rule that caused three months of selling pressure was suddenly withdrawn the same day Morgan Stanley launched a product that benefits from a recovering market.

That’s not a coincidence.

Here’s the full sequence in order:

1. MSCI threatens index removals (October 10)

2. Crypto crashes, uncertainty lasts 3 months

3. Prices stay suppressed while institutions wait

4. Morgan Stanley files its ETF (January 5)

5. MSCI cancels the removal threat (January 6)

It’s a clear pattern:

Create pressure
accumulate at low prices
launch product
remove pressure
Make money

MSCI controls index inclusion.
Morgan Stanley controls capital distribution.

Together, they can influence how and when institutional money reaches Bitcoin.

The October crash wasn’t just market panic. It was a structural play.

Now that the overhang is gone, liquidity is returning, and the same players who engineered the pressure are positioned to profit from the rebound.

There is no official confirmation that this was coordinated, but the sequence, the timing, and who benefited raise real questions.

Hypothetical: If Trump takes Greenland from Denmark - a NATO ally and founding member - he doesn't just instantly break an alliance...

He practically announces that international law is theater and the United States no longer pretends (that is has ever been) otherwise.

Denmark's warning is correct. NATO dies the moment America seizes territory from a member state. Article 5 - collective defense - becomes a joke. If a leader can take an ally's land unilaterally, what is the alliance protecting?

Trust evaporates instantly. Every NATO member starts calculating exit strategies.

But that's not even the main event.

Greenland is an infrastructure chokepoint disguised as frozen rock.

Arctic shipping lanes are opening as ice retreats. The Northwest Passage is becoming a viable route. Control Greenland and you control access between the Atlantic and Pacific via the Arctic - trillion-dollar trade route leverage.

Early-warning systems already exist there. Thule Air Base is the northernmost U.S. installation, critical for ICBM detection and space surveillance. Taking Greenland would formalize what is already strategic reality, but with total sovereignty.

Subsea cables carrying much of the transatlantic internet traffic run through waters near Greenland. Control the island and you control the cables. That’s information dominance.

Rare earth minerals are abundant and mostly untapped. They are critical for batteries, weapons systems, AI chips, and renewable energy. China currently dominates global supply. Greenland would shift that balance.

Geographically, Greenland sits between North America, Europe, and Russia. Whoever controls it controls surveillance over all 3...

This is systems capture, simple as that.

Predictable?

The post-1945 order was not built on morality. It was built on predictable rules that even powerful nations pretended to follow.

The U.S. bent those rules constantly (and we all know it) - CIA coups, drone strikes, sanctions - but maintained the fiction that international law mattered.

Other nations accepted this because predictability beats chaos every single time.

A Greenland grab ends the pretense. It announces that sovereignty is conditional, law is optional, and power decides everything.

First-order consequences follow immediately.

NATO fragments. European nations realize the American security guarantee is worthless if America itself is the threat.

Unable to outspend the U.S. militarily, they hedge - closer ties with China, independent nuclear programs, bilateral security deals that bypass Washington.

2nd-order consequences spread everywhere else.

China accelerates its Taiwan timeline. If the U.S. can take an ally’s territory without consequences, international condemnation becomes background noise.

Russia hardens control over buffer states. If territorial seizure is back on the menu, Moscow formalizes what it already controls in practice.

Middle powers start nuclear programs. If rules don’t protect sovereignty, only weapons do.

The Global South stops pretending the UN matters. If permanent Security Council members ignore international law openly, everyone else follows.

The system depends on pretense.

Even during the Cold War, the U.S. and USSR pretended rules existed. Proxy wars instead of direct conflict. UN debates instead of immediate invasions.

The fiction that sovereignty was sacred mattered because it created friction. You had to justify actions, build coalitions, go through motions. That friction created predictability.

Greenland removes the friction. It announces that might makes right.

The legibility problem follows.

A legible world is predictable. Borders are real. Alliances are solid. Rules are enforced. Predictability enables trade, investment, and cooperation.

An illegible world is armed, distrustful, and reactive.

Capital flows to weapons, not development. Trade routes militarize. Technology transfers stop. Every nation treats every other as a potential threat.

America would not weaken overnight. It would still have the biggest military and economy.

But it would operate in a world where allies don’t trust it, adversaries coordinate against it, middle powers arm themselves, trade becomes weaponized, and international institutions hollow out.

This is how empires decay...

They don’t fall from a single overreach. They fall when everyone stops pretending the system works. When allies, rivals, and neutrals all decide that playing by the rules is a sucker’s game.

A U.S. seizure of Greenland from a NATO ally would be that moment. Not because the island is hard to take, but because it announces the end of the pretense.

The strategic trap is clear.

The U.S. might calculate that Denmark can’t stop it, NATO needs America more than America needs NATO, and others will eventually accept the new reality.

All of this is true in the short term.

But the post-1945 order gave the U.S. something more valuable than Greenland’s resources: legitimacy.

That legitimacy was a force multiplier. It enabled coalitions, bases, institutions, and standards through consent rather than coercion.

Greenland trades legitimacy for leverage.

In the next 10 years, the gain might look worth it. Over 50 years, operating in a world where every nation is armed and distrustful is more expensive, more dangerous, and harder to control.

Empires don’t collapse from defeat. They collapse when everyone else stops pretending.

Greenland could be that moment.

Media: EurAsian Times