A person who knows a lot about money and computers said that if Bitcoin reaches $60,000, we should buy more because it will keep going up to $70,000 or $80,000. Some people with many Bitcoins moved their old coins around faster than usual before a new rule let some people invest in Bitcoin easily. This made the price of Bitcoin go down a little bit, but it might keep going up again later. Read from source...

1. The title of the article is misleading and sensationalized. It implies that Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Dogecoin are trading mixed after a "sell-the-news" response to spot BTC ETFs, but it does not provide any evidence or data to support this claim. The author should have used a more neutral and factual title that reflects the current market situation and trends.
2. The quote from the analyst in the article is taken out of context and does not accurately represent his views on the future price of Bitcoin. The analyst said that if Bitcoin hits $60,000, any pullback should be a buying opportunity because it would indicate a strong demand for the asset. He did not say that Bitcoin would reach $70,000, $80,000, or $90,000, but rather speculated on what could happen if the bull cycle continues. The author should have clarified this point and provided more context to the analyst's statement.
3. The article cites an on-chain analytical firm that claims larger Bitcoin wallets are moving older coins at a faster pace in anticipation of the recent ETF approvals. However, the article does not provide any data or sources to back up this claim, nor does it explain how this activity affects the overall market sentiment and price action. The author should have included more concrete evidence and analysis to support this argument.
4. The article concludes with a mention of Jim Cramer's advice against using Binance, which is unrelated to the main topic of the article. This seems like an attempt to generate clicks and attention, rather than providing valuable insights or information to the readers. The author should have either included this information in a separate section or not mentioned it at all.