Markus Thielen expects Bitcoin to outperform Ether, but that view leaves room for both an ETH rebound and further BTC weakness. In a Trade Secrets interview published on November 2, 2026, the 10x Research founder outlined a conditional path toward $90,000 for BTC by year-end, while allowing for an initial retreat into the mid-to-high $70,000s. His preference between the two assets deserves separate attention from that price forecast.
For traders watching ETH recover, the useful question is whether the rebound also improves its performance against Bitcoin. A rising dollar price answers only half of that question.
A constructive year-end view can coexist with a defensive trade
In the interview, Thielen compared the recovery with early 2023. He described institutional participation and profit-taking as reasons rallies might develop in steps, rather than run continuously. His outlook remained dependent on macroeconomic conditions and the Federal Reserve's stance. Those are his interpretations and expectations, rather than an established market path.
The shorter-term research was more guarded. The public introduction to 10x Research's October 30 note described bearish trend signals for both assets and a preference for an ETH short hedged with a BTC long. Its November 2 weekly introduction said Bitcoin remained below the firm's $80,000 trend model and warned about vulnerable relief rallies. That model reference is dated commentary, not a current spot quotation.
These statements address different decisions: the possible year-end destination, the immediate market regime and which asset might perform better. A BTC long used against an ETH short can express relative resilience even when both prices are falling. Publicly stated preferences do not establish the analyst's personal holdings or executed position sizes.
The ETH argument turns on value capture
Thielen's central criticism was that Ethereum activity does not translate sufficiently into benefits for ETH holders, with Layer 2 networks capturing too much value in his view.
That concern can be tested without assuming Ethereum has stopped being useful. A network can process more activity while charging less per transaction. Rollups can grow quickly, yet the fees they pay to Ethereum need not rise proportionately. Ethereum's blob-data design makes rollup data posting cheaper; lower costs help users, but transaction counts alone do not measure demand for ETH or fee burning.
The opposite extreme also misses something. Rollups still depend on Ethereum for functions such as data availability and settlement, and cheaper execution can bring additional demand. The question is how much economic value reaches the base layer as usage grows, and whether that value is large enough to matter for the token's valuation.
ETH supply reflects both issuance and burning. Higher fee burning can offset issuance; low fees can leave supply expanding. Staking rewards accrue to participating validators, not automatically to everyone holding ETH. Passive ownership is therefore different from earning a distribution of network revenue.
This gives the bearish thesis measurable conditions. Persistent growth in settlement demand, fees and burning would challenge a simple story of declining value capture. More transactions with little change in those measures would offer weaker evidence for an ETH revaluation.
Outperformance is a ratio, not a green candle
Compare both assets over identical start and end times. If their dollar returns are rBTC and rETH, the change in the BTC/ETH price ratio is (1 + rBTC) ÷ (1 + rETH) − 1. A rising ratio means one Bitcoin buys more Ether. The commonly quoted ETH/BTC ratio moves in the opposite direction.
In a hypothetical period where BTC gains 10% and ETH gains 5%, BTC/ETH rises about 4.76%. Where BTC falls 5% and ETH falls 15%, it rises about 11.76%. Bitcoin outperforms in both cases, although holding BTC loses dollars in the second. The gap between the two dollar returns, measured in percentage points, is a different calculation.
A pair trade adds another calculation: gains and losses depend on the dollar size of each leg, rebalancing, costs and collateral. It is possible to identify the stronger asset correctly and still lose money through poor timing or excessive leverage. KTX's market-correlation guide explains why moving together does not mean moving equally.
ETH's rebound still has its own hurdles
The supplied KTX ETH/USDT chart shows 2,425.26 USDT and a rolling 24-hour gain of 4.59%. The rebound follows a retreat from the region around 2,800 and a recent base near 2,250. These are figures at the time of the image, rather than a fresh market quote.
| Chart area | What would make it relevant |
|---|---|
| 2,400–2,450 USDT | Holding this contested area after completed daily closes would strengthen the immediate rebound. |
| Around 2,500 USDT | Reclaiming the earlier consolidation area would help distinguish recovery from a brief bounce into selling. |
| 2,300–2,250 USDT | A renewed loss of the recent base would weaken the rebound case and raise the risk of another downside test. |
These are chart-based observation zones, not guaranteed support or execution prices. The displayed candle's 2.7K volume should not be confused with the header's 30.04 million USDT rolling turnover. Neither measures net capital inflows, and an unfinished candle cannot be compared fairly with completed sessions. The ETH rebound-confirmation guide develops the distinction between a recovery attempt and a confirmed break.
For updated quotes and order-book depth, use the KTX ETH/USDT spot market. Spot prices alone do not establish whether ETH is outperforming BTC; that requires matched Bitcoin data.
What would weaken the relative-Bitcoin thesis?
A durable ETH/BTC recovery across several comparable periods would be a more direct challenge than a single strong ETH session. Stronger ETH settlement demand and improving fee economics would add a fundamental reason for that shift. A broad return of risk appetite could also favour higher-volatility assets, though the relationship changes across market regimes.
ETF data needs the same discipline. Assets under management reflect both prices and subscriptions or redemptions; trading turnover is another measure again. Neither should be substituted for net flows. A useful comparison separates persistent demand from a one-day repricing.
For a leveraged relative trade, monitor each leg's liquidation reference and funding separately. Correlation can change before a longer-term thesis pays off, and different price sensitivities make equal dollar positions an imperfect hedge. KTX's funding-rate explainer shows how recurring payments can change the result. The test is whether relative strength survives both the next decline and the next recovery, after costs.
FAQ
Does Bitcoin have to reach $90,000 to outperform ETH?
No. The target concerns BTC's absolute price. Relative performance depends on both assets' returns over the same period.
Did the Merge introduce Ethereum's fee burning?
No. Base-fee burning began with the London upgrade in August 2021. The September 2022 Merge changed consensus and issuance. Ethereum's issuance explanation separates the two changes.
Can one strong day invalidate a relative-strength view?
It can hurt a short-term position, but a broader thesis needs a defined evaluation period. Changing that period after every move makes the claim impossible to assess consistently.
Does a BTC hedge cap an ETH short's loss?
No. ETH can rally faster than BTC, funding can change, and either leveraged leg can be liquidated. A hedge does not create a fixed maximum loss.
Does the linked ETH spot market provide the same exposure as a short?
No. Buying ETH spot creates ownership exposure to ETH. A short position requires a separate borrowing or derivative arrangement, with its own eligibility and risk rules.
This article explains public market views and hypothetical calculations. It is not investment advice. Crypto prices, liquidity and leveraged positions can change rapidly and cause substantial losses.