Bitcoin: October ends with a 7% drop, can November reverse the trend?

Bitcoin lost 7.32% in October, ending three consecutive months of gains and the traditional scenario “from Uptober”. November will therefore not start with a blank page: before considering a new bullish phase, the market will first have to recover abandoned levels, restore confidence and absorb the consequences of the Binance hack.

A 7.9% increase would only erase the October fall

Bitcoin started October below $83,500 before briefly surpassing $87,000. The dynamic then reversed: the asset fell to $80,400 on October 9, then below $80,000 after the publication of higher-than-expected US inflation indicators.

An attempt to recover up to $85,000 was not enough. The price hit a six-week low of $76,100 on October 30, before ending the month around $77,000. The monthly report spring thus at −7.32%, after gains of 7.27% in July, 25.05% in August and 6.37% in September.

This drop redefines the first thresholds to monitor in November:

• An increase of around 7.9% would be necessary to compensate for a loss of 7.32%;
• The return towards 83,000 to 83,500 dollars would only mark the erasure of the decline of October;
• The threshold of 80,000 dollars constitutes the first zone to be reconquered sustainably;
• The 85,000 dollars correspond to the last recovery rejected before the bearish acceleration;
• Below $76,100, the market is likely to seek lower support.

This calculation changes the reading of a possible rebound. A 5% or 6% rise in November might seem significant, but it would still leave bitcoin below its October opening level. We should therefore distinguish a simple technical catch-up from a real bullish restart.

November performances are boosted by an exceptional past

History presents November as a good month for bitcoin, but the averages paint an overly optimistic picture. Since 2010, crypto has finished ten months of November out of sixteen in the green. The average yield reaches 34.59%, while the median, much more representative, is limited to 10.26%.

This gap is mainly explained by the first years of the market. In November 2013, bitcoin had gained more than 450%, an exceptional performance that pulls the entire average upwards. Conversely, November 2018 resulted in a fall of more than 36%. More recently, the price gained 37.36% in November 2024, then lost 17.5% over the same period in 2025.

Seasonality therefore does not provide reliable direction. It describes what happened in a restricted sample, without incorporating market developments. Bitcoin today depends more on ETFs, monetary decisions and institutional investors than during its first cycles.

This change had already been summarized by Bernardo Brites, co-founder of Trace Finance:

Uptober has always been a trend, not a law.

According to him, bitcoin now moves primarily based on ETF flows, interest rates and the dollar, three factors that do not follow the calendar.

November will be about confidence rather than the calendar

The fall at the end of October was not only caused by profit-taking. The Binance hack, valued at $6.3 billion, has shaken confidence in the world’s largest exchange. Binance asserts having covered approximately 95% of the stolen assets, while net withdrawals exceeded $3.5 billion after their recovery.

US bitcoin ETFs have also recorded $643.3 million in net outflows on October 30, their highest daily outflow of the month. At the same time, the Crypto Fear and Greed Index fell from 70 to 36 between October 4 and 30, swinging from greed to fear.

Three confirmations will therefore be necessary to make a rebound credible: a stabilization of withdrawals at Binance, the return of regular entries into ETFs and a reconquest of 80,000 dollars accompanied by spot purchases. Without them, an increase fueled mainly by derivatives would remain vulnerable to further liquidations.

November has a generally favorable history, but this statistic is no longer the main driver. The real test will be the market’s ability to regain liquidity and confidence after an October that served as a reminder that seasonal nicknames protect neither against macroeconomic shocks nor operational failures.