>>62306937
BTC was an IQ test when it was below $1,000

Now it’s midwit festival

>>62306945
Midwits have been saying this forever thought and are still sidelined and butthurt

1k was the top then 10k was the top, 20k was the top, 40k was the top.. 100k was the top.. and you still own zero.

>>62306954
It has nothing to do with the price or the top.

When BTC was sub $1,000, it was very obscure, had zero institutional support, the press would just ignore it, etc. Then, what’s the reaction of someone who hears about bitcoin for the first time, in these circumstances? Does he understand intuitively that this is a revolutionary invention that will become very valuable in the future? Or, like Michael Saylor, does he immediately dismiss it as a scam, even after a lengthy explanation of how it works?

That was a real life IQ test to separate the right-curvers and the midwits, like the vaxx btw. But now the test has expired.