Ethereum: As bearish sentiment rises, can ETH hold $1.5K?

Ethereum, the king of all altcoins, continued trading near $1,975 after collapsing nearly 60% from its October 2025 peak.

Tension has intensified across Ethereum markets. Kalshi’s contracts reflect growing conviction in further downside, amplifying the pressure already visible on the chart.

Was the market bracing for collapse  or dangerously overreacting?

Prediction markets turn bearish on ETH

Kalshi traders priced roughly 49–50% probability of Ethereum [ETH] dropping to $1,250 by 2026. Nearly 30% odds even extended toward levels below $1,000. This was not passive fear. It was funded by positioning.

The bearish framing centered on ETF outflows and institutional selling pressure. Layer 2 value accrual concerns added structural doubt. Therefore, Ethereum was treated as vulnerable rather than resilient.

However, prediction markets reflected sentiment snapshots, not guaranteed outcomes. Historically, extreme downside probabilities often emerged near emotional exhaustion.

As a result, some participants viewed this as defensive overcrowding.

Higher timeframes remain structurally bullish

Despite these developments, Ethereum’s higher timeframe structure remained technically intact. A bullish pennant formation continued to compress price action.

In particular, $1,513-$1,537 acted as the immediate structural support. Repeated reactions above this level preserved the macro pattern. Failure to defend it would have invalidated the bullish framework decisively.

However, even a bounce from $1,513 would not automatically confirm strength. Continuation required sustained momentum and improved market conditions. Therefore, structure alone did not guarantee expansion.

Liquidity favors the upside

Liquidation heatmaps showed most downside liquidity had already been cleared. Stops beneath recent lows were aggressively swept during the early  February dip.

Meanwhile, substantial liquidity remained positioned above ETH’s price. Clusters extended toward the $5,000 region on higher timeframes. As seen in previous cycles, such imbalances often acted as price magnets.

This created asymmetric exposure for short positions. A sharp upward impulse could have triggered forced liquidations rapidly. Therefore, bearish positioning carried structural fragility.

Is this the final shakeout before a breakout?

The market entered a decisive confrontation phase. Sentiment leaned bearish, yet structural integrity persisted.

Looking ahead, $1,513 remained the defining threshold. A decisive breakdown would have validated Kalshi’s downside pricing. However, continued defense could have forced shorts into uncomfortable unwinds.

As we progress into 2026, psychology remains split. Fear dominated positioning. Structure still controlled the outcome.

Final Summary

• Bearish probabilities surged, but $1,513 remained intact.
• Liquidity imbalance suggested upside risk had not disappeared.