My take on how the 4-year Bitcoin cycle changes in a post-ETF era. TLDR: The 3 years up, 4th year crash, halving-based cycle is breaking. We are in a post-ETF regime where price discovery is dominated by CME + ETFs, not offshore perps. Cycles persist, but they're longer, flatter on the way up, sharper but shallower on the way down, and more synchronized with macro liquidity and options positioning than with the halving. What changes in the post-ETF era: 1) Where the price is set - Pre-ETF: offshore perps + retail leverage -> parabolic blow-off tops, then -80% busts. - Post-ETF: CME futures + ETF creations/redemptions + dealer gamma do the heavy lifting. That caps "face-melting" tops and engineers weekend flushes (ETFs closed, dealers hedge via futures). * Authorized participants hedge creations/redemptions with CME futures intraday; dealers use options. * The Net effect: tops get "pinned" near large open-interest strikes, flushes happen on weekends when ETFs are closed and futures/perps can run stops. So "tops get pinned" because rallies often stall beneath the biggest call walls because systematic hedging injects sell pressure right at the breakout level. ETF plumbing shuts down on weekends, so the Monday effect is that when the stock market reopens, ETF flows and AP (Authorized participants) arbitrage come back online, often snapping price back toward fair value after the weekend move. * As ETF AUM grows, dealer gamma around key strikes/quarters caps blow-off tops (they sell into rips, buy dips). When Bitcoin sprints into a strike with large positive dealer gamma, the street's systematic selling into strength adds supply right where momentum needs air, pinning price under/around that level. Same in reverse on dips. * Basis trades (long ETF/spot, short futures) arbitrage dislocations -> fewer parabolas, more mean reversion. When futures trade richer than spot/ETF, funds buy spot (or create/buy ETF shares) and short the corresponding futures to lock in the basis; at expiry the two converge and they harvest the spread. ETFs amplify it: Authorized participants can create/redeem ETF shares against spot, so the long ETF/short futures leg is scalable and precise, making dislocation-arbitrage the standard and not an occasional trade. Net effect: Systematic two-sided hedging compresses basis and injects mean-reverting liquidity, so you get fewer parabolic blow-offs and tighter ranges around fair value. 2) Who holds and how (Post-ETF era) - More advisors/RIAs/401k money -> systematic DCA, less forced selling, but more correlation to real yields/tech. Flows are calendar-driven and benchmark-aware, not reflexive ape/fear. That raises the decision interval (weekly/monthly) and dampens realized volatility (the actual price fluctuations over a specific period). - Real yields, DXY going down is bullish and the inverse is also true. - On-exchange leverage migrates to options overlays and basis trades. Liquidations still happen, but they look like controlled air pockets rather than full implosions. 3) Policy containment - The likely arc (OP_RETURN illegal content scandal -> regulatory clarity -> licensed infrastructure) encourages ETF/custody flows and raises friction on self-custody. That dampens upside reflexivity (fewer "buy + withdraw" feedback loops). * "Upside reflexivity" = a positive-feedback loop where price up -> behavior that tightens supply further -> price up more. * In prior cycles, "buy -> self-custody" tightened exchange float and amplified upside reflexivity. * ETF units don't withdraw, they immobilize coins in custodians. Reflexivity weakens -> smaller upside overshoots. Because ETF buyers purchase shares (and the underlying coins are parked at a custodian while dealers/arbs sell rips and buy dips), the classic "buy -> withdraw -> thin book -> vertical squeeze" loop is muted - upsides overshoot less and mean-revert more. Example: In a self-custody bull market, $1B of demand might chew through an already-thin exchange ask, jump price +3–5%, trigger momentum, and the coins immediately get withdrawn, further thinning the book. In an ETF bull market, $1B hits ETF shares; APs short futures / buy spot gradually to create units, parking Bitcoin at the custodian (Coinbase Trust - yes very trustworthy, if it's named "Trust"). Dealers’ long-gamma hedging sells into the rip. The net result: smaller upside overshoot and faster reversion toward fair value. 4) Halving ≠ clock (in the Post-ETF era) - Halving remains a narrative catalyst but not the scheduler. - Macro liquidity (real rates, USD (DXY), credit spreads) and ETF flows matter more. What the new cycle probably looks like (Managed cyclicality): - 18-30 months of "orderly up", punctuated by policy/liquidity scares (-30% to -55%), followed by "clarity" squeezes. - Peaks are capped by options walls/ETF plumbing, crashes are bought by systematic flows. - Realized volatility declines, weekend wicks persist, Monday gaps normalize. - Draw-downs: Typical big draw-down -35% to -55% (not -80%). - Returns concentrate mostly in buying despair and fading "clarity". - If custody share stagnates while ETFs climb, expect contained tops. Implications of this scenario: - Add only on despair (-25 to -40% swift drops), not during "clarity" spikes. - Expect lower CAGR from Bitcoin than prior cycles. - Do not blindly extrapolate 2013/2017/2021 analogs because the market micro-structure is different now. So yes, cycles continue - but they're not the old halving-clock cycles. Expect a longer, ETF-managed uptrend, capped blow-offs, and engineered flushes keyed to macro and dealer positioning. Let's look at Pre-ETF vs Post-ETF leverage. You probably remember that in previous cycles, when retail plebs overextended with leverage, we got insane price action to the upside, which was then followed by cascade liquidations to the downside. 1) Pre-ETF (offshore perps): - 20-100x retail leverage, reflexive funding squeezes, cascading liquidations drive face-melting blow-off tops and then -70 to -85% busts. 2) Post-ETF (institutional structure): - Leverage migrates to basis (cash-and-carry), dealer options books, marginable-ETF units, and delta-one baskets (derivatives that provide exposure to an asset with a one-to-one price movement). - It's bigger notional, lower directional beta-less explosive upside, faster but shallower draw-downs (-30 to -55%) as hedges kick in. * Bigger notional because the market now runs on ETF AUM + options/futures carry rather than mostly spot on retail exchanges. That's deeper balance-sheet capital (APs, dealers, basis funds) constantly trading billions in notional via creations/redemptions, hedges, and arbs. * "Lower directional beta - less explosive upside" because a larger share of flows is hedged or volatility-sold (covered calls, collars, long-ETF/short-futures basis). Dealers frequently sit long gamma near popular strikes; they sell rips and buy dips, and APs stage creations over time. * "Faster but shallower draw-downs (-30 to -55%) as hedges kick in": 1) Shock hits (macro/headline/weekend): thin liquidity + leverage = quick air-pocket. 2) Hedges fire: basis desks buy back short futures as basis collapses; dealers' long-gamma hedging adds bids on the way down; collars monetize; rebalancers and AP/NAV arbs step in when discounts open. 3) These counter-flows cushion the fall before it snowballs into old-cycle −70% to −85% bear markets. Result: drops start quicker but bottom earlier because mechanical buyers show up by design. In older "buy -> withdraw" regimes, upside reflexivity was huge and downside liquidity thin; in the ETF regime, two-sided hedging and AP arbitrage replace that with mean-reverting flows - they won't stop a crash from starting, but they truncate it. With ETFs, most capital is hedged and arbitraged, so rallies are capped and selloffs snap faster but bottom sooner - think bigger money, smaller parabolas, quicker yet shallower (-30% to -55%) draw-downs as hedges and arbs do their job. Implication: Upside skew is sold, downside tails are managed (until policy shocks). So, is this a controlled volatility decline? Yes it is. - Immobilized float (custody) + option gamma walls + CME hedging = capped rallies and orderly ranges. - Policy "clarity" funnels users to ETFs/treasury companies, raising the market share of the limited volatility range machine. - You still get shocks (headlines, weekend stop-hunts), but the structure pulls price back into the pen. What I foresee: - MoE (Medium of Exchange) stagnation: Payment rails lose mind-share, stable-coins absorb transactions, Bitcoin cements as a supervised SoV (Store of Value) wrapper. - On-chain signals degrade: Lower UTXO velocity; exchange reserves matter less; ETF flow + CME Open interest matter more. - Culture shift: Self-custody cohort shrinks relative to paper holders; regulatory nudges make sovereign usage legally/operationally expensive. - "Buy puke / sell clarity" is going to become systematic. - Don't lever as the structure weaponizes leverage against late longs. In summary: As ETFs accumulate coins, realized volatility declines by design: slower hands, hedged creations/redemptions, and dealer gamma cap the highs and cushion the lows. The market shifts from halving-clock reflexivity to macro + plumbing. The old casino is dead, welcome to the Wallstreet-fuckery era of gold v2.0.

Replies (17)

This right there. You made a great effort to lay down eloquently what many people said in advance about regulation and the appearance of Wallstreet. Enjoy your freedom money now backing the status quo and the enrichment of Wallstreet over empoverished Mainstreeters. Bitcoiners got attacked and subverted over more than a decade ago. It's just a facade. The fight takes place in Monero and the price action will follow freedom and privacy tech as the collapse in faith becomes obvious even to the dumbest.
So I agree on the on diagnosis of the problem (not freedom money, instead paper fiat wealth). But, I disagree that Monero is the solution. However, it is something that I'll spend more time investigating. My opinion as of now: 1) Privacy Coins ≠ User Fix 2) Monero, Zcash, etc. fix tech-level privacy/censorship-resistance. But they don’t fix user-level apathy. 3) If 95% of people are fine living in the CBDC Matrix, then the user base for Monero will remain niche (activists, dissidents, darknet). 4) The deficiency is not the tool, it's the psychology of the user base. Technology can't solve human preference for safety + ease. In other words, if: 1) Bitcoiners suddenly decide to self-custody, 2) use Bitcoin for payments and ignore taxes on de-minimis payments en masse, 3) stop investing in Paper Bitcoin ETFs that are heavily manipulated by Wall Street, 4) stop investing in treasury companies, or at least demand Proof of Reserves, then I think we are in a good position. What are the odds of this happening? I'd say very close to 0%.
Why I think that MicroStrategy's best days are behind it. TLDR: before spot-Bitcoin ETFs existed, MicroStrategy (ticker MSTR) was a useful containment valve - a corporate proxy that soaked "number-go-up" demand inside regulated equity rails. Post-ETF, the State's cleaner lane is ETF exposure (surveilled custody, halts, AP/MM plumbing) rather than a corporate that keeps removing coins from float. MicroStrategy was very useful for the Controllers in the pre-Bitcoin ETF environment - it normalized holding Paper Bitcoin instead of holding your coins in self-custody. However, the Controllers now prefer that you buy Bitcoin ETFs instead of MSTR. Let's look at the Controllers’ incentives around MSTR: - Pre-ETF (2020–2023/24): Let MSTR run as the de facto Bitcoin proxy; it channels retail/institutional risk into brokerage accounts and away from self-custody. - Post-ETF (2024–): Prefer ETF rails (centralized custody; derivatives-anchored price discovery). * A Bitcoin-dominant operating company accumulating more coins creates supply withdrawal you can't easily nudge. * Keep it out of the S&P 500 to avoid importing crypto beta into the core benchmark; allow Nasdaq-100/QQQ because it’s rules-based and already tech-volatile. * For context, 5 days ago MicroStrategy was denied S&P 500 entry, even though it meets all the requirements. * MicroStrategy is included in the QQQ index which is rules-based, whereas S&P 500 inclusion is committee-discretionary (subjective). - Committees and boards don't want a corporate balance-sheet Bitcoin fund inside widows-&-orphans benchmarks. That's why Robinhood/AppLovin/Emcor got the S&P nod instead of MSTR. * In other words, the S&P index gatekeepers didn’t want a de-facto Bitcoin proxy (MicroStrategy’s balance sheet) inside a core benchmark. - Reflexivity brake: In July '25 MSTR said it won't issue common stock below ~2.5× "mNAV" (the ratio that compares the company's market capitalization to the value of their Bitcoin holdings). * So unless the equity premium widens, they buy less Bitcoin with equity. That dampens the feedback loop that would otherwise tighten Bitcoin float. * MSTR's MNAV is ~1.4 right now. In other words, MSTR has now entered the short selling price-manipulation phase (more context in the post below). With spot ETFs + CME futures, MSTR trades inside a tighter cross-asset box; options/swap "synthetics" and borrow supply cap squeeze dynamics. MSTR has been roughly flat and its volume has been much lower since joining the Nasdaq-100/QQQ on Dec 23, 2024. On Dec 23, 2024, MSTR price was at $332, its price today is ~$326.45 (it has had episodic spikes). Saylor really wants to get a pass from the Controllers with his endless "Bitcoin is a store of value, not a medium of exchange" narratives, but it doesn't seem to me like he's getting one. Another way he wants to get a pass from the Controllers is by masterfully dodging Proof-of-Reserves questions with lame excuses. Imagine if MSTR normalized Proof-of-Reserves, then most, if not all Bitcoin treasury companies would have to play along. What would falsify this theory: - If S&P 500 later adds MSTR with no methodology tweak -> committee tolerance for Bitcoin-proxy risk rose (containment softening). - If MSTR's ops mix re-grows (software cash flow matters; Bitcoin marks minority) -> "operating company" optics improve. - If a G-7 adopts Bitcoin reserves -> the whole "ETF-only containment" thesis weakens. But for now: - Containment = steer flows to Bitcoin ETFs, not a reflexive BTC-hoarding corporate inside the core equity benchmark. - Allow QQQ (rules-based) but keep the S&P gate shut. - Let MSTR’s own issuance rule cap its Bitcoin absorption unless its premium expands. The Controllers aren't fond of corporations that keep removing coins from float, they'd like you to buy the ETF and shut the fuck up 😂 Here is more context on the Bitcoin ETF era: View quoted note → Here is more context on how the Controllers suppress companies they don't like with magic short selling. View quoted note →
Very much agree. I would love to see this but chances are close to zero. A niche product means at least there is a market fit. KYC Bitcoin has no market fit anymore. It's just another tool in the arsenal of oppressors and a damn good one thanks to fiat NGU advertisement. Most people also use cash and know about its properties. Also most people seem to be on the highway to hell giving up former freedoms for a little more convinience, if at all. I personal do think that high denominated fiat bills still have a very high convenience factor outside of smart city VC startup digitalisation bullshit.
This one is a bit long and technical, but it’s worth the read. Outlook is bad not because the dampened price action, but because the attempted capture (regulatory wise) and cultural shift that will try to put Bitcoin in the same category as gold, effectively castrating it (making it “safe” and useless from their perspective). Pay attention and push back in whatever capacity you have: run Knots, spin up a BTCPay server, run a lightning node, get a BitAxe, use Bitcoin as money, not just savings. Get comfortable with the tech, even if you’re not technical person (I’m not). Teach others to do the same privately without being annoying. If they can make moves in the shadows, so can we. Every action has an equal in force and opposite in direction reaction. Be the counter force. View quoted note →
When you start studying the Controllers of this world, you realize how brilliant they are. Which is why my research has lead me to believe that they just follow instructions from very advanced LLMs and have done so for a very long time. Very few people understand the "Incentive Inversion Attack" that is happening in the Bitcoin space, not even the OGs. The Controllers understand that the best control isn't bans; it's paying people to do the controllable thing. (CBDCs, ETF wrappers, cloud credits, etc). View quoted note →
I previously wrote about how permissionless technology ≠ permissionless adoption. When managing money, it's very important to understand mass behavior, incentive structures, and why people act against their own long-term interests. Here are the four engines of mass behavior: 1) Incentive gradients (what pays now) - People follow net-effort -> net-reward gradients, not ideals. If the reward is near-term, visible, and certain - while the cost is delayed, abstract, and probabilistic - behavior will skew short-term every time. 2) Defaults & frictions (what's easiest) - Behavior follows lowest-friction paths. Defaults, one-click choices, and pre-checked boxes beat sermons. Tiny frictions shift billions of decisions. 3) Narrative & identity (what feels right) - People protect self-image and in-group membership even when facts conflict (identity-protective cognition). The story that preserves belonging wins over the truth that threatens it. 4) Feedback loops (what reinforces) - Immediate reinforcement (likes, payouts, relief) rewires habit faster than distant outcomes. Why even "smart" people still defect from long-term: - Meta-incentives dominate beliefs. Even smart people first decide what benefits them (status, income, network), then craft rationalizations. - Compartmentalization. Professional intelligence ≠ incentive literacy. People who model markets still miss their own behavioral accounting. - Social risk > factual risk. Getting ostracized today feels worse than being wrong in five years. How to tell if you're acting against your own long-term interest: - If the benefit is now and the cost is later, assume you're under-pricing the cost. - If a choice preserves belonging, assume you're over-weighting identity. - If the platform chose the default, assume it benefits them more than you. - If the metric is public, assume it's being gamed (by you or to you). - If a habit depends on willpower, assume it will fail under stress. How to consistently pick long-term: - Automate the boring: savings, skills, sleep, strength, deep work. - Deliberately add friction to bad paths. - Make identity explicit: tie your reputation to long-term behaviors. People don't "fail" because they don't know; they fail because the environment pays them to fail now and bill them later - in cash, status, and belonging. This is similar to how Bitcoiners are sabotaging themselves by buying Paper Bitcoin with no understanding of the long-term consequences. More context: View quoted note → The antidote isn't stronger opinions; it's stronger defaults and pre-committed rules. Read the incentives; expect the behavior; position ahead of it. The concept of people acting against their own long-term interests becomes very obvious when you start asking: - "If the default were the opposite, what % of people would still end up here?" - If the answer is "probably <30%", the current outcome is default-driven, not preference-driven. View quoted note →
Had to go from 95% net worth invested in Bitcoin -> 15% about 2 weeks ago. A lot of the confidence I had, vanished, once I stopped listening to podcasts with Bitcoin authority figures and started to research on my own. The reason I made the move is that I am pretty sure Bitcoin is going to become Gold. Based on my research, the masses embracing Bitcoin as a medium of exchange over stablecoins/CBDCs is a very remote probability. This doesn't mean that Bitcoin is not going to go up in fiat terms of course. I still think there are massive fiat gains to be made in Bitcoin. I'll be a buyer on draw-downs of 45-55% from ATH, and seller during "clarity" (e.g. policy, liquidity, etc.) spikes. For me, Bitcoin went from being Hope to being a hedge against "The Great Taking" type scenario and a niche, permissionless MoE. If you are unfamiliar with the book "The Great Taking": - The book describes what Webb calls "The Great Taking" - a systematic, global seizure of all collateralized assets through legal, technological, and financial mechanisms. In other words, you don't own the stuff in your brokerage account. - This is enabled by the laws in every country in the World (they were changed recently to allow for this global seizure type scenario). Of course, if this happens, then Bitcoin and Gold get revalued much higher overnight. Based on my research, the Controllers changed the laws for an edge case, this is not the base case type scenario. If I have a reason to believe that the odds of Bitcoin as a mass MoE increase over time, I will scale back into it. For now, Bitcoin is a dissident MoE, a Store of Value, and a "Great Taking" scenario type hedge, and I don't see this changing for the better any time soon. More context on the post-ETF era: View quoted note → More context on how permissionless technology ≠ permissionless adoption: View quoted note → More context on how governments and large institutions are domesticating Bitcoin: View quoted note → More context on what OG Bitcoiners don't understand: View quoted note →
It's complicated. Technically, you don't need to fake coins to suppress the price with financial instruments. Context: View quoted note → It is possible that there is an organized run on exchanges/ETFs/treasury companies and people move to self-custody because of a scare (a bank run of sorts). In other words, you're going to need the grassroots, ordinary people to organize a run on these institutions and self-custody. "Foreign opponent" posting proof of reserves is extremely unlikely because there aren't really any foreign opponents. Thinking that an "adversarial" government would want to pump the parallel, competing monetary system (Bitcoin) is not realistic. There are a thousand ways governments can impact each others economy and integrity but they don't because that's not how the world works. ALL governments (well there's really only 1 government) would fight to the death to preserve their monopoly on money issuance and violence. Bitcoin used as a MoE messes up their monopoly on money, so you can kind of connect the dots and follow the incentives. Context: View quoted note →
My Bitcoin Price Prediction model for the next 5 years Needless to say - not financial advice, no one knows what's going to happen, many assumptions are made. The model assumes a "contained Bitcoin" regime - paperized SoV, MoE throttled, volatility damped, price never too cheap (to avoid a self-custody revolt), never too high (to avoid escape velocity). The price map (next 5 years, USD) Assumptions the Controllers enforce - Paperization floor: ETFs/custodians/futures absorb flows; self-custody grows slowly. - MoE friction: KYC wallet defaults, tax micro-frictions, merchant rails favor stablecoins. - Volatility clamp: derivatives depth + inventory warehousing + weekend-liquidity "hunts" cap blow-offs. - Don't trigger a bank-run: price suppression is subtle - a rising channel with disciplined ceilings. Year-by-year corridor (spot, end-of-year "most likely" ± range) 1) Year 1: $95k–$150k (modal: $120k). Realized vol ~ 45–55%. Draw-downs −25–35%; spikes fail in low-liquidity windows. 2) Year 2: $110k–$185k (modal: $145k). Vol 40–50%. Two policy/ETF "clarity" squeezes; tops sold into via basis/arbitrage. 3) Year 3: $120k–$210k (modal: $165k). Vol 35–45%. MoE rhetoric cools; stablecoins/CBDC pilots win merchant share. Bitcoin acts like digital gold beta. 4) Year 4: $115k–$230k (modal: $175k). Vol 30–40%. A "shock" dip (−35%) gets rapid policy patch; rebound restores the channel. 5) Year 5: $130k–$260k (modal: $190k). Vol 28–38%. New wrappers (pensions/401k feeders) add grind-up flows; blow-offs still capped. Cycle statistics under containment 1) Up-years: +15–35% (median ~+22%) 2) Down-years: −15–30% (one in 4–5 years) 3) Peak draw-downs: typically −30–40% (vs −70–85% in pre-ETF era) 4) Ceiling discipline: rallies fade into policy events (ETF inflow PR, "regulatory clarity", CBDC pilots). 5) Floor defense: sharp downdrafts arrested by ETF creations/rebalancing/basis trades; price not allowed to linger <~$90–100k for long (to avoid self-custody panic). Why the clamp works 1) Paper share rises -> realized volatility mechanically falls (inventory + option overwrites). 2) Futures/ETF basis control -> suppresses reflexive squeezes. 3) Perimeter frictions (tax, Acceptable Use Policy, KYC wallets) -> keeps MoE niche; "number go up" is paced, not explosive. How to exploit if you are a trader (only spot is covered in this post, not options) 1) Buy fear / sell clarity. - Buy when: weekend liquidation cascades, policy FUD, ETF outflow headlines, net-liquidity drains (TGA rebuild + coupon heavy), and price tags −25–35% from recent highs. - Sell when: "regulatory clarity", index inclusion rumors (e.g. MSTR), big inflow PR, or "institutional adoption" headlines into multi-month resistance. 2) Watch the Paperization Ratio (PR): custodial/ETF/futures share of float. - Paperization Ratio up -> reduce expectation of parabolic rallies. - Paperization Ratio down suddenly (custody scares, PoR memes) -> add to self-custody. 3) Respect weekend micro-structure: - Anticipate stop hunts in thin books. Place stink bids 5–12% below Friday's close; fade Monday reversion. 4) Stay away from levered long ETFs except for intraday events (they decay in capped corridors). - Do not buy and hold Bitcoin leveraged ETFs across months (containment + volatility-crush = decay). Red-flag signals (corridor breaks) 1) Sustained self-custody surge (mempool fee spikes + exchange outflows + wallets trending) while ETF premiums go negative. 2) Hard perimeter tighten (OS/app-store bans for non-KYC wallets, bank de-risking of mining/pools). 3) Major custody incident (hacks, sanctions on a top custodian) -> corridor upside (panic rotation to self-custody) or downside (convertibility doubts). 4) Macro liquidity shock (MOVE > 150 + Net Liquidity −$150B/4w) -> temporary −35–45% draw-down even in containment. What to ignore 1) "Mass adoption tomorrow" MoE narratives (flows will be steered to stablecoins/CBDC). 2) "Bitcoin to $1M in two years" (under current constraints - implausible). 3) Levered products held across months (containment + volatility-crush = decay). The Controllers' optimal Bitcoin path is a rising, volatility-capped channel: roughly $95k -> $190k median over five years, −30–40% max draw-downs, blow-offs sold, floors defended. More context: View quoted note →
You basically didn't read the post and the quoted post or didn't understand them. When are you expecting the next few trillion of dollars to convert to Bitcoin? Make sure to tell them to market buy spot BTC so they can move the price. None of the assumptions assume that everyone is a day trader and long term Bitcoin adoption is near zero. The post literally states that it assumes increased Paperization - custodial/ETF/futures share of float. So you didn't read or understand the post, and you definitely didn't read or understand the quoted post: View quoted note → In regards to your gold comment, you can try to read and understand this post and the quoted post: View quoted note →
Retail demand increasingly matters less and less in a Paperized, Post-ETF environment. Post-ETF: CME futures + ETF creations/redemptions + dealer gamma do the heavy lifting. Now, advisors/RIAs/401k money -> systematic DCA, less forced selling, but more correlation to real yields/tech. If retail wants more volatility, they will chase penny Bitcoin treasury stocks or will lever up in other ways. For retail to matter more, people have to start self-custodying and stop buying paper products (especially ones that don't provide proof of reserves) and I don't see that happening any time soon. View quoted note →
lol, fuck monero and qbits controlling 51% of that Network. Can’t even get people to adopt BTC, never mind explain xmr.