A hypothesis is gaining popularity in the crypto community that optimistic posts by Binance founder Changpeng Zhao (CZ) on X serve as a kind of marker for local Bitcoin tops. After each such post, the price of the first cryptocurrency soon declined — the pattern can be traced across four historical examples.

Enthusiasts have already dubbed this phenomenon the "perfect top indicator." According to their logic, the mood of CZ's posts can be used to determine the moment when the growth phase is exhausted. Below is a summary of the documented coincidences.

Four posts — four corrections

Four of Zhao's posts are marked on the Bitcoin chart over the past year. All of them were distinctly positive in tone and appeared shortly before price declines.

  • October 2025. CZ wrote that the market is shedding weak players and becoming more resilient. At that time, BTC was trading around $126,000, after which it fell to approximately $80,000.
  • January 2026. A post saying a "supercycle" lies ahead — prolonged growth without severe drops. The price was above $90,000, then dropped to approximately $60,000.
  • May 2026. A call to ignore bad news. A price of around $80,000 was followed by a decline below $60,000.
  • September 2026. A laconic "Soon…" with a link — a hint at a bull run. With the price at around $87,000, Bitcoin declined to approximately $73,400.

Why the theory should be treated with skepticism

The hypothesis has at least two weak points. The first is the sample: there are only four posts on the chart, whereas CZ publishes posts constantly. What happened to the price after the other posts is not shown by the authors of the theory. The second is that coincidence in time is not identical to a cause-and-effect relationship. The chart does not prove that Bitcoin fell specifically because of these posts. Moreover, none of the four posts contains a forecast with a specific price or timeframe.

Optimism from public figures does not in itself guarantee growth. But selling Bitcoin after every post by the Binance founder also makes no sense — four coincidences are not enough for a reliable signal.

Cryptalist analysis: The case of CZ's posts is a clear example of survivorship bias: the market remembers successful coincidences and ignores dozens of neutral publications. For an institutional investor, such "sentiment indicators" are not a standalone trigger, but they should be taken into account as a reflection of retail sentiment at local highs. A stable correlation requires a statistically significant sample, not four points on a chart.