Crypto Stocks Near Bottom After 60% Drawdown

Lead

Crypto-linked equities have plunged roughly 60% from 2025 peaks and, according to a Wall Street broker note cited by Bitcoin Magazine on March 30, 2026, are approaching a cyclical bottom that the firm describes as a "big discount" entry point. The commentary comes after an extended period of sector underperformance relative to broader markets, and follows renewed scrutiny of leverage, balance-sheet strength and regulatory exposure among major listed crypto participants. Market participants and strategists are parsing whether the price action reflects capitulation and valuation clearance, or whether renewed macro volatility and regulatory risk could trigger a deeper derating. This report summarizes the public assertions by Bernstein as reported on March 30, 2026, places the 60% figure in historical context, and outlines potential sector implications and downside scenarios. It is written for institutional investors seeking data-driven perspective rather than prescriptive guidance.

Context

Bernstein's note, as summarized by Bitcoin Magazine on March 30, 2026, framed the crypto-equities complex as down approximately 60% from 2025 highs, a magnitude consistent with deep cyclical correction but materially shallower than some prior sector drawdowns. For reference, the 2018–2019 crypto winter saw many public crypto-related equities and tokens decline by more than 80% from peak levels (CoinDesk, 2019), underscoring that a 60% retreat can be significant but not necessarily terminal for the subsector. The Bernstein observation follows a period of compressed valuations, declining trading volumes in crypto spot markets and stressed funding conditions in crypto credit intermediation, factors that together amplified equity volatility in 2025–26.

The primary constituents of the listed crypto complex include exchanges (e.g., COIN), miners and infrastructure providers (e.g., MARA, RIOT), and investment vehicles (e.g., GBTC and listed futures ETFs). Historically, these subgroups have displayed different beta profiles to spot bitcoin: exchanges typically show lower operational leverage to spot price moves than miners, whose revenue is more directly tied to mining economics and coin issuance. Bernstein’s framing of a "big discount" likely reflects this divergence in stress sensitivity and an attempt to identify where potential free-cash-flow coverage exists across the coverage universe.

Market positioning entering 2026 mattered. After a run-up into mid-2025, many institutional and retail participants tightened risk budgets, and derivative markets showed elevated put-buying into late 2025. That positioning, combined with catalytic events such as regulatory actions or leverage unwinds, can accentuate equity moves — a dynamic visible in the steep drawdown to date. Investors reading Bernstein’s note should therefore weigh whether the 60% down move primarily reflects valuation repricing, earnings downgrades, or structural re-rating tied to regulation and access to capital.

Data Deep Dive

The headline figure — ~60% drawdown from 2025 highs — is a cross-sectional description; dispersion within the complex remains wide. Using a representative sample of exchange and mining equities, internal Fazen Capital tracking shows one-year peak-to-trough moves ranging from roughly 40% for some exchange operators to more than 75% for highly levered miners during the 2025–26 correction (source: public prices, Q1 2026). Bernstein’s point highlights the median, but the tails matter for portfolio construction: companies with stronger balance sheets and diversified revenue profiles have seen smaller relative declines versus debt-laden peers.

Volatility metrics corroborate stress: implied volatility on certain crypto equities spiked in late 2025 and remained elevated through Q1 2026, in some cases doubling average levels seen in 2024. Trading-volume analysis across listed exchange names shows meaningful declines in average daily turnover versus the 2024–25 run-up, signaling potential liquidity erosion at lower price levels. Those liquidity dynamics amplify the risk that fundamental investors seeking to deploy capital at perceived "discounts" will face market-impact costs and execution slippage, particularly in names with low free float or concentrated insider holdings.

Valuation comparisons are instructive. On a simple price-to-book or enterprise-value-to-EBITDA basis, many crypto-related equities traded at high premia in 2024–25 and have compressed materially post-drawdown. Where benchmarks exist — for example, exchange operators vs broader fintech peers — the sector now trades at a multiple discount relative to comparable software or payments companies, reflecting idiosyncratic regulatory and operational risk. That said, historic precedent (2018–2019) warns that multiple compression can continue into prolonged bear markets until structural clarity returns.

Sector Implications

If Bernstein’s characterization of a cyclical bottom is correct, the sector could enter a phase of consolidation where capital markets access normalizes and valuations stabilize. Recovery pathways differ: exchanges could benefit from normalized trading volumes and fee diversification, while miners depend on coin prices, energy costs and operational efficiency to restore cash generation. For listed miners, break-even economics remain sensitive to hash price and energy cost curves; a modest recovery in bitcoin price could disproportionately benefit miners with low marginal power costs.

Corporate finance implications are material. Companies that raised equity or issued convertible debt near 2025 highs now face higher refinancing costs and potential covenant pressure. Firms with ample liquidity and unencumbered assets will be better positioned to consolidate market share through M&A or to endure extended weak revenue. Conversely, highly leveraged names could be forced into asset sales or restructuring, a nonlinear outcome that could create both downside and asymmetric upside depending on execution and timing.

Investor flows will also matter. Passive vehicles and ETFs that target crypto equities saw outflows during the drawdown phase; a stabilization or reversal in flows would support relative performance, whereas continued redemptions could exacerbate price moves. Institutional reallocation decisions will hinge on regulatory clarity, auditability of on-balance-sheet crypto holdings, and evolving accounting treatments — all variables that affect comparability to broader technology and financial benchmarks.

Risk Assessment

Regulatory risk remains the principal non-market tail risk for listed crypto exposures. Actions by securities regulators, tax authorities or energy policymakers can directly alter operating models for exchanges and miners; a regulatory tightening in major jurisdictions could trigger additional downgrades and widen valuation dispersion. Market participants should treat regulatory scenarios as binary catalysts that can reset both earnings expectations and cost-of-capital assumptions rapidly.

Macro risk is the second-order amplifier. A sustained tightening cycle, higher-for-longer rates or dollar appreciation could depress risk assets broadly and reduce appetite for high-beta, idiosyncratic equities. Conversely, a marked easing in macro conditions could lift risk premia and support a sector rebound. Liquidity stress in bank lending or capital markets would disproportionately hurt smaller and more capital-intensive names within the crypto complex.

Operational risk — including custody failures, exchange outages, or concentrated counterparty exposures — remains nontrivial. Listed entities with weak governance, opaque asset segregation, or concentrated revenue streams present asymmetric downside. Stress-testing of balance sheets against price scenarios and liquidity shocks is essential for institutional due diligence, and public disclosures remain uneven across the coverage universe.

Fazen Capital Perspective

Fazen Capital views the Bernstein observation through a pragmatic lens: headline drawdowns can create opportunity sets, but timing and selection matter. A contrarian posture that leans purely on the 60% figure without granular counterparty and cash-flow analysis risks being early rather than prescient. In prior cycles, the first wave of buyers at deep drawdowns captured outsized returns in names with durable franchises; the second wave, however, often moved into companies that ultimately failed to adapt to new regulatory or market structures.

Our differentiated read is that value extraction will be idiosyncratic and hinge on three filters: balance-sheet liquidity, regulatory clarity in the firm’s primary jurisdictions, and demonstrable revenue diversification independent of spot cryptocurrency pricing. Names that clear these filters may warrant closer workstreams and potential re-engagement for long-term research, while names that fail multiple filters are likely to remain under pressure regardless of where the median sector multiple stabilizes.

Importantly, entry points labeled as a "big discount" by sell-side research merit cross-checks against execution risk. Institutional investors should model not just hypothetical IRRs from price mean-reversion, but also liquidation scenarios, potential capital injections, and covenant trajectories. Our team recommends scenario-based valuation bands tied to observable triggers rather than a single-point nominal "discount" call. See related topic and further topic for ongoing coverage and research frameworks.

Outlook

Near-term, we expect continued volatility and dispersion across the crypto equities complex as headlines and regulatory developments drive episodic repricing. A technical rebound is possible if macro conditions ease, trading volumes recover and derivative-implied volatility contracts, but sustained outperformance would likely require visible improvement in corporate liquidity and clearer regulation. Time horizons will be critical: investors allocating at these levels should be prepared for multi-quarter recovery paths rather than immediate mean reversion.

Over a 12–24 month horizon, three scenarios appear plausible: (1) Stabilization with selective recoveries in high-quality names, (2) Prolonged stagnation if financing channels remain constricted, and (3) Structural consolidation where weaker operators are acquired or exit and a smaller set of firms command premium multiples. The probability weights for each scenario remain sensitive to regulatory signals and the macro-financial backdrop.

Institutional investors should prioritize disciplined due diligence, stress-test position-level exposures, and document catalysts that would prompt incremental capital deployment or exit. Historical analogs provide guideposts but do not replace bespoke analysis for an asset class still characterized by evolving infrastructure and policy regimes.

Bottom Line

Bernstein’s assessment that crypto-linked equities are down ~60% from 2025 highs (Bitcoin Magazine, Mar 30, 2026) frames a meaningful cyclical correction, but recovery hinges on balance-sheet health and regulatory clarity rather than headline drawdown alone. Investors should evaluate idiosyncratic fundamentals and execution risk before acting on perceived discounts.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.

FAQ

Q: How have miners performed versus exchanges historically, and why does that matter?

A: Historically, miners have exhibited higher beta to bitcoin spot and have experienced deeper peak-to-trough declines in stressed cycles (e.g., 2018–19). That matters because miners' revenue is directly linked to coin issuance and hash-price economics, making them more sensitive to energy costs and commodity price swings; exchanges derive more revenue from fees and product breadth, which can provide relative resiliency.

Q: What are the practical implications of a "60% drawdown" label for institutional investors?

A: The practical implication is not a binary buy signal. Institutions must assess liquidity, potential market-impact costs, covenant and refinancing timelines, and regulatory exposure. A 60% headline drawdown can mask wide dispersion; tactical opportunities will more likely emerge at the single-name level where cash-flow visibility, governance and capital structure are favorable.