These analysts have had years of brainwashing on how fiat-ponzi-economies work and legitimately think crypto is the same. They probably view Bitcoin like a stonk that will react like all other stonks in a recession.
This is where you're deeply mistaken, so drop the tinfoil hat, please.
Whenever I see an article I first look if is in the "opinion" section, if it's a paid article or if it's by a regular author of that website.
In this case, the analyst are actually dedicated to crypto, you can see even the links to their Twitter profiles in the article:
https://twitter.com/emilyjnicollehttps://twitter.com/isabelletanleeSeriously, this attitude of everyone who doesn't see 300k by tomorrow is paid by the banking cartels is sooooo yesterday!
Simple math tells that in the previous cycles the price has fallen
* from ~1170 ATH to ~150 bottom. 7.8 times
* from ~19900 ATH to ~3100 bottom. 6.42 times
This makes numbers like 8846 or 10750 look possible.
On the other hand, let's go linear: 7.8 - 6.42 = 1.38; 6.42 - 1.38 = 5.04 => (69000 / 5.04) 13690 looks more possible than the other variants.
Following that model, I would be more concerned with the ATH than the bottom
From ~1170 to ~19990 is 17 times
From ~19990 to ~69045 is 3.45 times
If we go linear is impossible, so we would have to go by a 70% increase at maximum for the next ATH, I'm quite sure that 99% of the users would hate that more than a dip down to even 5000.
I've been dedicatedly analyzing crypto since 2013. Still I don't consider myself to be an expert. I don't think anyone is an expert on crypto, because it's very volatile.
Bloomberg has been predicting 400k and now 10k which are both insane. It would suit them better to keep some consistency in their predictions, that's all I'm saying.