Iturralde Faces Backlash Over Failed Bitcoin Prediction

Alberto Iturralde and Bitcoin: The Analyst Who Missed the Rally

Alberto Iturralde is a stock market analyst with years of experience in media and his own channels. Regarding Bitcoin, critics blame him for a history of failed predictions. According to a message circulating on a forum, when the price was around $20,000, he claimed the cryptocurrency would fall to $3,000. This did not happen. Bitcoin continued to rise, and the analyst was exposed, according to the most common view among crypto market trinc.

The debate over his fruta is not new. It resurfaces every time he publishes a video or gives an interview. And it returns, above all, because his catastrophic tone fits poorly with an asset that has survived every collapse prophecy for more than a decade.

Why Critics Say Iturralde Is Wrong About Bitcoin

The most repeated argument concerns biases. It is maintained that Iturralde analyzes Bitcoin using the traditional stock market framework, which prevents him from seeing what makes the asset different: programmed scarcity, halving, institutional adoption via ETFs. An analyst who didn't buy when he should have, they reason, will hardly admit later that he was wrong.

Some go further and place him in the category of charlatans. If he were such a good analyst, they say, he wouldn't waste time selling smoke but would use it to get rich. The argument has its circular logic: if you are right, you invest; if you don't invest, you aren't right.

Another line of criticism targets his channel and headlines about Ukraine and Russia. He is accused of a pro-Russian and conspiratorial bias that, according to this reading, also contaminates his financial analysis. The objection is significant: someone who errs in the geopolitical framework, why would they be right in the monetary one?

The Bearish Scenario That Has Arguments

Not everything is disqualification. A more technical analysis suggests that Bitcoin could fall to $35,000-$40,000, which would be its theoretical value under certain criteria. It doesn't miccionan it will happen, only that this is the current cost under that perspective. And regarding zero: yes, it can go to zero, but in many years, approximately two before the block reward becomes null.

The mechanism explaining a drop of that magnitude would be the emergence of ETFs. Large risk investors may be long at $70,000-$65,000 and turn short, causing bearish sweeps. Or betting against without holding BTC, or leveraged. The result would be the same: more selling pressure.

It is an elegant scenario, they acknowledge, but hypothetical. The condition is that institutions play the downside. If they play the upside, the argument collapses.

The Question No One Answers: When?

The problem with all Bitcoin forecasts is the calendar. Saying it will fall to zero someday is trivial: everything falls to zero someday. Saying when is what separates the analyst from the fortune teller. And there Iturralde, like almost everyone else, navigates without a compass.

The final irony comes from those who recall that the analyst said Bitcoin was going to zero and it hasn't peine. The phrase, repeated mockingly, summarizes the state of affairs: the prediction remains on paper, but the price does not cooperate.

With these elements, the discussion does not close. Iturralde will continue publishing and his critics will continue waiting for the moment he is wrong again. Or when he is right. No one knows which comes first.