Bitcoin is about to go parabolic.I’ve just spent the last few weeks autistically researching and studying price movements and smart money moves. We’re in a very unique and very intense period of consolidation. This isn’t just going to keep doing a “oh it’ll spike to 140k and then settle back then maybe 180k next year…”Once it hits certain threshold… it’s going all the way$1m is much sooner than you think Strap in
buy mstr
>>61250685nice copemy litecoin bags are heavy
>>61250685If it goes to 1 million within a year Im sucking your dick OP, now explain to us poorfag the arguments you have for such an insane take knowing that institutions are actually selling right now
>>61250689Kek bagggie
>>61250685It's going to $1m by the end of next year. If you have a nice stack and a full year's worth of living expenses saved on the side, then you literally do not have to work anymore lol
>>61250779> knowing that institutions are actually selling right nowThey literally aren’tVast majority of the downward pressure is coming from short term holders selling at a loss, institutions have consistently absorbed all of it and brought it back to resistance several times nowExtremely high volume, genuine spot buys driving price back up, and long term holders continuing to accumulate with coin dormancy increasing
>>61250685>Once it hits certain threshold…What's the threshold? 140K or 1.618 at 190K?*I also really, really dislike breast reductions
>>61251938In the short term a sustained close above $120k for a week will likely inspire a jump to near $140k - that in turn will establish a firm trend of sustained ATHs under minimum volatility. With sustained rate cuts $200k is very likely within a few months from there and at that point it’s entirely possible to run away as once Bitcoin establishes itself at a high enough market cap and with enough institutional investment there will be a simultaneous “all in” acceptance of it which will multiply it several times over. I would say a $4T market cap will be the breaking point for this.
>>61251980Wow thanks anon. Your explanation is greatly appreciated
>>61250685The guy from the pic is Ben shapiro
>>61251980>In the short term a sustained close above $120k for a week will likely inspire a jump to near $140kWhy? Who is buying then who isn't buying now? Retail is selling at a loss to buy groceries, and if its just institutions buying from each-other, why would the price go up?
>>61250835What do you think about exchange balances being at all time lows?I keep seeing coins being withdrawn from coinbase and binance, but the price still stagnating is crazy.
>>61251980i could see 1m by 2033, 200-220k this cycle, vibes based research.
>>61252131The price goes up because institutions and long-term holders are absorbing every bit of short-term sell pressure. Retail selling at a loss doesn’t push it lower if deep-pocketed buyers keep clearing the books. It’s redistribution from weak hands to balance-sheet buyers, not new retail inflows.>>61252132Low exchange balances mean circulating supply for trading is drying up ie an invisible coil. Price stagnates only because buyers and sellers are in equilibrium at current levels, but every coin leaving exchanges tightens future supply. Once demand outweighs even slightly, price will move violently upward.
>>61252150>price will move violently upward.I hope so. It looks like ETFs been about the same amount of holdings the last 3 weeks. I'd be pissed if we go under 100k and bear for a couple years. This has to be a shakeout
>>61250779McDaffy made a similar bet and he's dead without sucking his own dick on national TV. I trolled his ass relentlessly in emails.I tried to counter wager him.He remained curiously silent....because he knew I was correct.He is dedI am alive still...
>>61252150To expand on this I believe institutions are priming to have a stranglehold on supply. Once they have a tight grip on it they will push mass adoption on retail and in global finance while having the keys so to speak. This will massively accelerate price in short order ensuring that the people late to the party ie 90+% of retail will be too late to reap huge gains at that point though it will be a firmly established hedge still.
>>61252179This actually seems pretty plausible given everything going on with price action. If BTC has been officially accepted by establishment institutions and they are planning around a $1m stabilized price or higher they are going to want it to be extremely rapid and when they have the most holdings so as to prevent any massive gains being made outside of their purview
>>61252150Institutions will only buy if they think line will go up. Line will only go up if there's someone out there to buy at a higher price than it is currently. If retail completely gives out, there's no-one left, line doesn't go up, institutions don't buy, line doesn't go up, and so on forever.>>61252179Who gives a shit if they have a stranglehold on supply if no-one is buying it? Its not oil, its not a coffee future, it provides no utility, no industry requires it, its a pure speculative asset, and no-one is going to buy it unless there is a reason for it to go back up unless they are profoundly stupid. If a few institutions own the entire supply, then if anything, the price will go down as they can exert cartel pricing on buying new supply from miners.
>>61252179retard alert, extreme concentration only means said institutions are the final baggies. Unless they bribe all our corrupt politicians into forcing the gubment/taxpayers to stack at gunpoint, the kikes literally cornered themselves into a beanie baby stranglehold scenario.But i mean, the levels of absolutely insane corruption at Washington means the forced stacking at gunpoint might be their main plan.
>it’s not oil or coffee Correct it’s a monetary asset ie an emergent reserve instrument. Its value doesn’t depend on industrial use, it depends on monetary preference exactly like gold, which has minimal utility but trillions in stored value.Once institutions control supply, they don’t need “someone else to buy it” they become the market. By holding the majority of liquid BTC, they can denominate products, derivatives, and reserves in it. That creates systemic demand independent of consumer behavior. By cornering float, they ensure the only way to gain exposure is through their channels (ETFs, funds, derivatives). They then push those channels in the financial system from the top down.
>>61252270For >>61252248 obviously The idea that institutions need retail to independently want to buy is retarded essentially. They can determine whether retail buys in from their own influence.
>>61252270You've over-abstracted and forgotten the fundamentals. The dollar is a reserve currency because if you want to do business in the largest market on earth you have to pay tax and tariff denominated in dollars, and most of the players in that market only accept dollars. US Treasuries are reserves because they can be exchanged for dollars. No crypto has this status, and there's no reason to believe any of them will any time soon. The only way one could is if these institutions conspired to all stop accepting dollars at the same time, and I hope I don't have to explain to your cope-addled brain why that will never happen.
>>61252293Are you retarded? Serious question. Reserve currency =\= reserve asset. I’m simply explaining why Bitcoin is inevitably going to hit a gold tier market cap based off of every indicator from institutional money. That does not require Bitcoin replacing USD entirely, which I agree is a much more implausible scenario, for the foreseeable future anyhow.
>>61252307The difference is irrelevant. A reserve currency or asset is worth something because someone wants it, currencies are just more liquid, assets typically more durable. Gold is useful because you can make something with it. Dollars are useful because you can buy things with them. If the entire supply of bitcoins is owned by a cartel of institutions, it has no value, because it has no use outside of dealing with those institutions, who will also have to denominate things in dollars, which means they would have to provide a discount to make it worth dealing in bitcoin. If those institutions can and do set absurd prices like 5x-ing the value in the space of months, then it effectively becomes hyper-inflated fiat, and no-one will bother denominating anything in it.
>>61252327>gold is useful because you can make something with it lol. Lmao. The reason 99% of people buy gold and hold it is because it has been institutionally established as a collectively accepted monetary asset/store of value. That’s it. People don’t view gold as a good long term hedge because it is also sometimes used in very specific electronics manufacturing (a very recent phenomenon) and for trinkets. The exact same thing happened with gold as is happening with bitcoin right now in the early 20th century in fact.
>>61252344People buy and hold it because they will be able to sell it. They will be able to sell it because someone wants it. If a cartel owns all the bitcoins, and there's no way to get more aside from mining or paying whatever outrageous prices they demand for them, there will be exactly zero demand, and zero price. If there's no demand, then no-one will denominate anything in them unless they are forced to at gunpoint. You might as well make up an entirely new coin at that point.
>>61252344Based and correct, and nocoiner/goldtards often seem to not understand this. Gold is an established hedge because of its basic attributes making it ideal for this use case (limited supply, durable, long-term consensus). Bitcoin is superior in virtually all aspects to it (liquidity, auditability, divisibility, etc). Literally the only thing it lacks that gold has is mass acceptance/consensus which is exactly what institutions are absorbing it all up to provide, that's what they can do to tip the scale.>>61252344>People buy and hold it because they will be able to sell it. They will be able to sell it because someone wants it. Literally circular logic. "People hold it because they can sell it because people want it so they hold it so they can sell it because they want it." At this point you have no argument against bitcoin either because you're basically ceding that it's purely down to mass consensus of its use case based on its properties making it ideal for acting as a value proxy. In which case as soon as bitcoin gains the one thing it doesn't have that gold does (which stems from institutional establishment) it will take on this role.
>>61252344whats your specific target for critical mass inflection point in terms of coins on exchange ?2.1 million left sounds like a good point to me, there's 2.3 currently.
>>61250685hey guysi actuallygot like0.025 bit coinsso caneverybodybuy andnot sell?thx.
>>612523991.8–2.1 million I’d say. We’re on track to hit 2 million or below in less than a year so we will find out real soon >>61252397Exactly they want to completely dominate it so they can provide the final ingredient so to speak without lacking firm control over most of the value
>>61252426Meant for >>61252179
>>61252397>Literally circular logic. Yes, because an economy is a fundamentally circular thing. Alice gives something to Bob that he wants in exchange for something she wants. Crypto does not work like this. Every crypto has finite life-span, where it increases in value until the greatest fool is found, at which point the demand, and consequently the price, goes to zero, and stays there. Shitcoins have a lifespan measured in days, bitcoin's is measured in years, but there is no other meaningful distinction between the two. Gold, commodities, and every fiat currency has value because at the end of the day, there will always be a buyer.>Bitcoin is superior in virtually all aspects to it (liquidity, auditability, divisibility, etc).These properties are only of use between institutions which do not have a "high power" shared between them (i.e. government or higher banking authority) to resolve disputes, which means, as I believe your kinds like to say "token not needed".
>>61250689Post more threads about how you totally made 7 million dollars on mstr, baggie.
>>61252432>These properties are only of use between institutions which do not have a "high power" shared between them (i.e. government or higher banking authority) to resolve disputesExactly. Institutions will push what’s useful for them. If institutions view bitcoin as more useful than gold for the purpose gold serves, which it seems they do view it this way given absorption and spot buys, then they will push to establish bitcoin in the spot of gold. Simple as. That’s the entire argument. Gold is a hedge for exactly the same reason currently but it is inferior to bitcoin for this purpose in a number of ways. so they will move to the superior asset, but they will only give the “go” signal in the systems they control once the asset is firmly in their grip. Which is exactly what’s happening right now. There’s a reason for the quiet/bearish retail sentiment right now and it’s engineered imo
>>61252399>>612524261.8 million in supply lock zone so parabolic movement guaranteed at that point
>>61252463If those properties are useful, then there is no reason for them to use an established coin, much less to buy your bags. If they actually need those properties for the few inter-institution transactions, they will make their own, private, permissioned blockchains with stable prices instead of dealing with market volatility. Institutions do not buy "communities", or "vision", or whatever cope you're peddling this week, they buy whatever makes them richest and that isn't your bags.
>>61252473“They’ll just make their own blockchain.”Then it’s not neutral dummy it’s just another bank database. The whole value of Bitcoin is that no one owns the ledger and it’s designed that way fundamentally You can’t copy trustlessness by committeeVolatility doesn’t equate to uselessness. it’s the natural adoption curve of every monetizing asset. Institutions already picked the winner, they’re building products around Bitcoin, not private tokens which are all inevitably going to fail against it for a multitude of reasons.
>>61252473>there is no reason for them to use an established coinThe properties that make Bitcoin superior to gold are unique to Bitcoin anon, they aren't a natural part of crypto in general or any shit token you can crap out which ape off of Bitcoin's superiority to gold to pretend like they offer the same potential value when they're mostly just techbro retardation
>>61252293>US Treasuries are reserves because they can be exchanged for dollars. No crypto has this status, and there's no reason to believe any of them will any time soon.America literally froze Russia's treasuries. as the American empire flounders and a multi-polar world order rises, "money for enemies" will be the only logical solution.
>>61252481>Then it’s not neutral dummy it’s just another bank database.Not if the nodes are the institutions themselves and no-one institution or nation owns the entire network.>>61252490You could fork bitcoin and have all of the same properties, none of the value is intrinsic to the particular coin we currently call "bitcoin". Bitcoin's higher price in that case would purely be from adoption, meaning is has found more greater fools than the fork. Doesn't even have to be bitcoin itself, you could make basically any PoW coin and it would work identically.
>>61252407no you want it to stay as cheap as possible so that you can stack as long as possible my little lobotomite
>>61252505>if the nodes are the institutions themselvesThat's just a cartel, Bitcoin’s whole point is permissionless validation. Once again this would defeat the whole purpose of why it's superior to gold. They can try to assert control over most of the supply by having direct custody over it as with gold, which is exactly why it is favorable, but they will never have any one thing that has total monopoly over it. >just fork itSo clone bitcoin exactly as it is but with zero adoption/consensus/network effect. So in other words just shit out a worthless copy that will be immediately irrelevant and die... because actual Bitcoin already exists. Kek
>>61252525>That's just a cartel,Did you miss the part where the other anon was claiming bitcoin was going to $1m because a cartel of institutions would buy it all?>Once again this would defeat the whole purpose of why it's superior to gold.It defeats why *you* believe its superior to gold, not institutions. Institutions have no need to have permissionless validation of your transactions, they are the validation, by government decree.>which is exactly why it is favorable, but they will never have any one thing that has total monopoly over it.Favorable *to you*, not to them.
>>61252540>Did you miss the part where the other anon said it’d go to $1m because of a cartel?kek a cartel owning supply isn’t the same as a cartel running consensus. Institutions can corner liquidity just like they did with gold, but they still can’t rewrite, censor, or counterfeit Bitcoin’s ledger. That’s exactly what makes it valuable/why it has parity with gold in terms of true neutrality, it stays neutral no matter who holds it.>Institutions don’t need permissionless validationThat’s true within their own legal systems but not between them. Cross-border finance has no single arbiter. JPMorgan doesn’t get to dictate final settlement to the ECB or the PBOC. That’s why true neutrality matters>Favorable to you, not to them.It’s favorable to both. For them, Bitcoin is pristine collateral and censorship-proof reserve diversification. For individuals, it’s monetary self-sovereignty. The same neutrality that protects retail from debasement protects institutions from counterparties. If that wasn't favorable to them why would they ever not just stick with fiat? kek
>>61252556>That’s exactly what makes it valuableWhat makes it valuable is that someone wants to buy it. It doesn't matter how permissionless or censorship-proof it is if the entire supply is owned by a cartel that dictates the price at their whims.>That’s why true neutrality mattersCorrect, but only to them. Institutions can form their own chain that you don't get access to, and that doesn't require them buying your bags to use. I have no reason to believe that the future of cross-border, inter-institutional transfer and settlement won't be some sort of blockchain, but it won't be anything you have access to, much less anything they have to buy from you. Token not needed.>For them, Bitcoin is pristine collateral and censorship-proof reserve diversification.Its only collateral if it has value, which evaporates as soon as they control the entire supply.>For individuals, it’s monetary self-sovereignty.If your definition of sovereignty is losing your entire net worth by visiting the wrong site with an browser extension, sure. What you don't realize is that trust and reputation required in the current financial system is a feature, not a bug. The only use case for crypto is when there isn't a government arbiter, or you are deliberately trying to circumvent one. In the former, there is no benefit to including you, and in the latter, that "audit-ability" just means you get found out and shut down faster.
>>61250685Oh shit, it really is over isn't it.
>>61250692Same. Sold my dash a week ago...
>>61252620>that dictates the price at their whims.They can only dictate the price via buying or selling... that's it. Like gold. They can't magically make it go down or up without doing this.>Institutions can form their own chain that you don't get access toWe've already gone over this nocoiny. This literally defeats the purpose of Bitcoin. >they'll just form their le own chainWhy would any institution adopt another's private chain that they don't have equal sovereignty/control/lack of control over? What they're going to collectively create their own totally neutral chain? How will they guarantee that? Why bother? Bitcoin is guiaranteed neutral already. So that's out the window. 0 for 2>only collateral if it has value which evaporates as soon as they control the entire supplyRiight that's what happened with gold - oh wait>If your definition of sovereignty is losing your entire net worth by visiting the wrong site with an browser extension, sure. Oh this nigga is retarded. God damn kek. Maximum bull at this point, this has completely convinced me. Thanks for this talk my friend.
>>61252703>>If your definition of sovereignty is losing your entire net worth by visiting the wrong site with an browser extension, sure.You don't know how to use BTC or crypto in general. Please invest in both of these:>ubikey or equivalent>trezor or equivalent
>>61250685>$1m is much sooner than you thinkNo it fucking isn't. Know why? As soon as it hits every milestone like $150k and $200k there's going to be a TON of profit taking..
>>61250685I hope you are right anon i just spend $30k on a mining setup
>>61252703>They can't magically make it go down or up without doing this.If they are the sole suppliers, they sell it for the price they dictate, that's what cartel pricing is. You do realize the prices on markets and exchanges aren't some magical number that just "happens" and that its just what someone has bought or sold it for? If they own the whole supply, they are the only seller, which means they dictate the sell price.>This literally defeats the purpose of Bitcoin.You're right, we have gone over this. It defaults the purpose *for you*. You don't matter, especially not to them.>Why would any institution adopt another's private chainWho said anything about a chain private to a single institution?>What they're going to collectively create their own totally neutral chain? Yes,>How will they guarantee that?Same way bitcoin currently works, just without you.>Why bother?So that they don't have to bother with market volatility, transaction fees, and every other unsavory element of crypto for every transaction. An asset that swings 10% in a day is a shit asset for billion dollar settlements.>>61252728Counter-proposal: I don't put my life savings into fake internet money, and instead participate in a functioning financial system that can reverse fraudulent transactions.
>>61252760>Counter-proposal: I don't put my life savings into fake internet money, and instead participate in a functioning financial system that can reverse fraudulent transactions.You don't have to get upset, I was offering you real advice. If you do not wish to invest in crypto, that's your choice.
>>61252760>If they own the whole supply, they are the only seller, which means they dictate the sell price.No way this nigga arguing this. That’s not how markets work. Price discovery happens at the margin and the next trade sets the price, not theoretical ownership. Even if 99% were held by institutions, the remaining 1% trading still defines market value. You can’t “dictate” price without counterparties; you can only offer and hope someone accepts. If the millions of retail wallets holding 0.1, 1, or even 5-10+ BTC don't want to sell, then they don't own that supply. If people buy from them at market price, they give up that supply. keekkkk>A “neutral” chain they control isn’t neutral. It reintroduces the same trust and governance problems they’re trying to escape. The only reason to use a blockchain between institutions is to remove that single point of control which only Bitcoin currently guarantees. It will always be the base layer any hypothetical private chain would be based on>muh fees muh volatility Volatility declines as adoption and liquidity increase. Transaction fees are settlement costs which are negligible compared to interbank friction. Bitcoin’s purpose isn’t replacing retail rails, it’s providing final settlement without trust. Exactly what they want>I don't put my life savings into fake internet money, and instead participate in a functioning financial system that can reverse fraudulent transactionsThat only works because you don't have custody. That ain't actually your money lil chuddie. Your bank account or investment account can get fucked raw just as easily. And who's to say there couldn't be bitcoin insurability? Can already invest through ETFs if you're too scared to put your sack on it straight up. Kekarooni
>>61252760anyone anywhere in the world can mine and transact with bitcoin Say some exchange sets a sell price if it's not in line with the global market dynamics it'll bleed coins until it blows up. This isn't like the "functional financial system" where players are too big to fail and get bailed out when they make mistakes, Bitcoin is a real market.
>>61250685It's literally crashing as we speak. This thread will be hilarious to look at in a couple of days.
>>61250685>$1m is much sooner than you think>Strap inTWO MORE WEEKS!
>>61252753you fucking retard
>>61250689
>>61252490You shitcoin tards are tards and do not even know you're a tard being played long term. What blinds you to the actual fact that you are tards is that you're brainwashed into the new ponzi. A ponzi that is goign to be used to enslave you and your children. It's like cheering your own demise which in its self is the ultimate in retardedness. Everything you said is wrong. Good luck with that. You'll find out in ttime.
You do not even know what you do not know. That is what makes shitcoiners dangerous to everyone.
>>61250779This... This isn't about Bitcoin anymore is it?
you think i'm on biz for financial discussion?more tits please
>>61253827>You do not even know what you do not know. That is what makes shitcoiners dangerous to everyone.they now can buy and trade shitcoins on houdini swap private
>>61250685Nah, 200k is the highest it can go, but more realistically, it will stop somewhere between 150k-180k. Whales want all the Bitcoin for themselves. You WILL buy near the top. You WILL sell at a loss.
Keep dreaming. There's so much sell pressure it can't even sustain 120k
>>61250685If the top is 120k then we are headed to 65-75k by November next year. If the top is 180k then we are headed to 25-35k by November next year. As simple as that. So those redditors who are cheering for Tate's prediction will have to swallow another leg of bull, or his prediction will simply not work.
You didn't use GPT in your research did you? Oh no...
