Bitcoin price today falls below $78,000 as weekend rout hits crypto

Bitcoin extended a sharp pullback into Monday, with traders pointing to a mix of macro nerves, thin weekend liquidity, and forced selling in leveraged derivatives. The slide has revived “bitcoin crash” chatter across social media, even as price action shows pockets of stabilization after a steep intraday dip.

As of 8:18 a.m. ET on Monday, February 2, 2026, bitcoin price USD was $77,803, down about 1.0% from the prior close, after trading as low as $74,609 earlier in the session.

Bitcoin price today: where BTC is trading

The intraday swing underscores why “btc price” can look calm on a headline number while the underlying tape remains volatile, especially when liquidity is uneven across time zones.

Why is crypto crashing right now?

A key driver has been a fast repricing of expectations around U.S. monetary policy after the nomination of Kevin Warsh to be the next Federal Reserve chair. The market’s read-through has been “less easy money,” with a higher probability of tighter financial conditions than previously priced. For crypto, which often trades like a liquidity-sensitive risk asset, that shift can matter as much as any crypto-specific headline.

At the same time, the U.S. dollar has firmed and broader risk appetite has cooled in pockets of global markets. That combination tends to pressure speculative exposures, and it can prompt systematic and discretionary traders alike to reduce gross leverage.

Leverage unwind and weekend liquidity shock

The steepest leg of the move unfolded during low-liquidity weekend trading, when fewer resting orders can allow relatively modest sells to push prices through key levels. Once those levels break, the market can cascade: stop-loss triggers, margin calls, and liquidation engines can all add incremental sell pressure.

Liquidation estimates vary by tracker, but recent coverage broadly described large, billion-dollar-scale forced unwind activity across crypto derivatives during the weekend slide. The practical impact is the same even if the exact total differs: when leverage gets flushed quickly, price can gap lower, spreads can widen, and rebounds can stall until positioning resets.

This dynamic also helps explain why “bitcoin crashing” can trend even on a day when the BTC USD change looks single-digit: the path matters, not just the close.

ETFs, big holders, and the institutional bid

Institutional plumbing has played a bigger role in this cycle. Spot bitcoin ETFs have become a key channel for two-way flows, and recent sessions have seen meaningful redemptions. Late January included at least one day where net ETF outflows were roughly in the $800 million range, amplifying downside pressure during an already fragile stretch.

Corporate and fund holders have also been in focus. Shares of companies closely tied to bitcoin treasury strategies have tended to magnify BTC’s moves, and the latest dip briefly pushed bitcoin below some widely cited average cost bases. That doesn’t change the long-term thesis for those holders, but it does tighten risk management constraints and can influence short-term sentiment.

What happens next: levels and catalysts to watch

Near-term direction is likely to hinge on whether bitcoin can hold above the mid-$70,000s without repeated “air pocket” drops. A clean reclaim and hold above the high-$70,000s would suggest sellers are exhausting and the market is rebuilding depth. Failure to do so would keep the “crypto news” cycle centered on forced selling and risk-off positioning.

Two catalysts stand out over the next couple of weeks: incoming U.S. data that affects rate expectations, and any concrete signals on how the next Fed leadership intends to approach inflation, rates, and the central bank balance sheet. Crypto can rally in a risk-off world at times, but sustained upside usually becomes easier when liquidity conditions stop tightening.

For now, the market is behaving like a classic deleveraging phase: sharp downdrafts, reflex bounces, and a heavy emphasis on flows, collateral, and positioning rather than narratives.

Sources consulted: Reuters; The Wall Street Journal; Barron’s; MarketWatch