I still remember that November day. A market crash that hit simultaneously American stocks, Hong Kong equities, Chinese A-shares, Bitcoin, and even gold. It wasn't the collapse of a single asset but something more systemic. All risky assets seemed to be pressed by the same invisible hand.

When I look back at that event, the first thing that strikes me is the speed. The Nasdaq 100 lost nearly 5% from its intraday high, closing down 2.4%. Nvidia, which had just surprised positively with its quarterly results, still ended in the red. In one night, $2 trillion evaporated from the market. On the other side of the Pacific, the Hang Seng fell 2.3%, and the Shanghai Composite plunged below 3,900 points.

But the real disaster was in the crypto market. Bitcoin dropped below $86,000, Ethereum below $2,800, and over 245,000 people were liquidated for $930 million in 24 hours. From the October peak of $126,000, Bitcoin had wiped out all gains and fallen further. Even gold, considered a safe haven, couldn't withstand the pressure.

But what caused such a violent market crash? The main culprit is the Federal Reserve. Two months earlier, everyone was hoping for rate cuts in December. Then, suddenly, Fed officials changed tone. Inflation was slowly decreasing, the labor market remained resilient, and there was a possibility of further tightening. The message was clear: no cuts in December. CME FedWatch data confirmed this—the probability of a cut plummeted from 93.7% to 42.9% in just a few weeks.

When the Fed shattered expectations, the market went from a party to intensive care. The focus shifted to Nvidia, but something interesting happened. Good news that doesn't push prices higher is the strongest bearish signal. It means the market had already priced everything in. Michael Burry, the well-known short seller, started raising doubts about the circular financing structure between Nvidia, OpenAI, Microsoft, and Oracle. He made provocative comments about the ridiculously low real demand.

Goldman Sachs identified nine factors behind this market crash. Nvidia's rally was exhausted despite good results. Concerns about private credit were growing. Employment data was unclear. Bitcoin broke the psychological threshold of $90,000, dragging everything else down. CTA funds that were in extremely long positions started systematically selling. Short sellers became active again. Asian tech stocks were not supporting the US market. Liquidity had evaporated—the bid-ask spreads widened significantly. And finally, trading was increasingly driven by ETFs and passive funds rather than individual stock fundamentals.

Ray Dalio said something interesting after that event. Yes, there is a bubble in AI, but the US market was only at 80% of the extreme bubble levels seen in 1999 or 1929. Before a bubble bursts, many things can still go higher. It wasn't the time to sell everything in panic.

In my opinion, that crash wasn't a sudden black swan event but a collective correction that exposed a structural problem: global liquidity is fragile. When all risky assets concentrate in the same sector—tech and AI—and trading is dominated by algorithms and passive funds, a small trigger is enough to trigger a chain reaction. More automation in trading means easier to form runs in one direction.

One fascinating aspect was Bitcoin's role in all this. For the first time, cryptocurrencies truly entered the global asset pricing chain. BTC and ETH are no longer marginal assets—they have become the thermometer of global risky assets.

But is the bull market really over? No, I believe the market has entered a high-volatility phase where expectations for growth and rates are being recalibrated. AI isn't ending tomorrow, but the era of irrational rallies is over. The market is shifting from expectations to profit-taking. And cryptocurrencies, being the riskiest assets with the highest leverage, experienced the sharpest declines but often bounce back first.