BTC

jongolfpro

Since I posted this BTC up $1k. Get educated or get left behind.

SnackFactory

Leaving 400+ BTC on GLBSE

jongolfpro

This cycle will not follow the norms. This bear cycle will end early…. But! The whales of BTC are entrenched in the classic cycle. So it will rise over the coming months, but it won’t really take off until October this year.

jongolfpro

BTC cycle, especially whales, plus liquidation heat map to see where leveraged bets are, plus macro news, and technical analysis… not just predictions on who was liquidated.

BenzinaGrandeCapital

I see this post come up every once in a while. And people love to dog XRP holders but .... do you guys understand... how MASSIVE 67,000% is? And that's not even getting in at the bottom tick in 2017, that's just randomly buying this coin with a decent entry. Besides..... If you bought the bottom in 2020 you're up 3,000%. Of if you just got a super basic entry at .30 youre up 1000% I don't understand why XRP gets dogged so much when there are other coins that have not made any moves of 1000% or more and been around just as long such as XLM, or other coins within the similar space like XDC or HBAR. You know since 2017 the same time period BTC is only up 8,000%. That's nowhere close to 67,000%. And if you wanted to be accurate and bottom tick xrp that jumps to over 120,000%. https://preview.redd.it/tg29lsu7a03h1.png?width=1835&format=png&auto=webp&s=381db57837e9a930b3f39cb841d06dc063136a7f

No_Ordinary_Rabbit_

Part of me is proud that I was one of the ones that bought $1000 in BTC before 2017. The other part of me is quite irritated that I sold it the next day because I chickened out. Honestly, I had no business buying it in the first place, because I still did not understand it. I sure do now. And I sure am glad I got in before the real fun started. It is true, you get Bitcoin at the price you deserve. HODL.

UpDownLeftRightABLoL

At the time 100,000 BTC sold for $100 or something like that.

Lehcen

I knew an escort who paid with bitcoin to list on backpage but she deposited cash into BTC atm machines this was 2018. If you don’t have recollection of any clues… email, wallet, exchange… chances are near inexistant

2shyofa3sum

I didn't say you should buy her an iPhone. I said you buy your girl an actual gift, not BTC. This doesn't seem like a hot take to me.

lamoinew

My two cents I think they are keeping the price down to push out miners that are not corporate. Make the miners suffer fold up close down stop operation are pivot. Then when it's time only miners that will be left are big pools and corporate. Not a miner but do own a fraction of a BTC. Put everything I could into it which is not much as just a poor soul. Will not be here to ever see if BTC will make it big. got a terminal cancer so invested for my children. Just in case anyone wants to donate to my children future https://cash.app/$LamoineWaddle have all deposits 100% deposit to BTC.

2shyofa3sum

If you get your woman BTC instead of something else for her birthday (like an iPhone), you deserve the dumping that is surely coming to you.

Cultural-Candy3219

I would not read this as “Saylor turned bearish” by itself. Strategy is not just a wallet with BTC in it anymore; it is a public-company capital-structure trade wrapped around BTC. Once mNAV, preferreds, convertibles, buybacks, and credit conditions are involved, selling a slice can be a treasury decision rather than a pure market call. That said, it does change the story people repeat. “Never sell” is simple. “Sell when it improves per-share economics or protects the structure” is more realistic, but less meme-friendly. The risk is reflexivity. If the premium compresses, financing gets less attractive, BTC falls, and the market starts pricing possible sales, the vehicle can move very differently from spot BTC. Anyone holding it should understand that they are not only holding Bitcoin exposure; they are also holding management decisions, leverage, equity-market sentiment, and liquidity risk.

Cultural-Candy3219

DCA out usually means selling by rule instead of trying to call the exact top. The rule can be time-based, price-based, or portfolio-based, but the point is that you decide before the market gets emotional. Example approaches: Sell a fixed percentage of the stack every month once BTC is above a level you chose in advance. Sell small chunks at several price bands instead of waiting for one magic number. Rebalance when BTC becomes too large a share of your net worth. Sell enough to cover taxes, debt, or life expenses, then let the rest ride. It does not need to mirror your buying schedule. Someone might buy $50 a week for years and later sell 5% of holdings at a few planned levels. The important part is knowing why you are selling: risk reduction, actual cash need, or portfolio balance. The trap is calling it DCA while really doing “I’ll sell when it feels euphoric.” That can work once by luck, but it is not a process. A written exit ladder is boring, which is exactly why it helps.

Wildwildworld123

If you have no recollection of purchasing them then i can assure you, you didnt. This is how I know you never got any BTC. 2015, I was also up to no good. I was selling pressed xanax bars in bulk on top of taking about 10 of them a day. I was Mixing xanax, adderall, and methadone every day and was the worst bartard outta of all my friends. Even though I was in a black out for 12 hrs a day I would still have to meet my guy from localbitcoins at starbucks and sit with him while he counted the cash and then eventually sent the btc to my wallet. Exchanges werent readily available like they are now. When Mt.GOX was "hacked" trust in BTC was at an all time low. After buying BTC id go home log onto mac, go on tor, log on to alphabay and load the btc onto my wallet there. i also didnt use qr codes though they may have been used at that time. If you dont remember doing stuff like this I highly doubt you ever purchased any. there was other ways to get some but it wasnt a simple process. You would absolutely remember buying them and then sending them to a wallet Backpage owned. Also in 2025 1btc fluctuated from being worth $200-$400. You may want to consider going back to being a Dominatrix as you wont be finding any lost BTC and theres some big money Ive hear in that profession.

Cultural-Candy3219

I would publish two universes, not one ranked list. Otherwise the top of the model becomes a mix of real trades and things that only exist in a charting database. For a tradable version, I’d start perps-first: both legs listed on at least one serious venue, enough depth at your intended size, funding history available, and a rule that removes the pair if borrow/funding/slippage would consume the expected spread. If a coin only has spot liquidity and no reliable short, I’d label it research-only rather than let it sit beside executable pairs. I’d also keep USD and USDT separate. USDT is the practical denominator for most crypto, but if the signal is measured in USDT and the PnL is mentally marked in USD, that basis risk should be visible. A tight USD/regulated-venue set and a broader offshore/USDT set would be more honest than one universal top 100. The extra filter I’d add is venue overlap. A BTC/SOL pair that can be run on multiple deep perp venues is a different product from a midcap pair where one exchange controls most of the short side. Same stats, very different failure mode.

Last_Lawfulness_1736

In the funding-rate question at the end. The thing that consistently catches systematic crypto traders is path dependence, not the median rate. Your tier 1 "5-15% APR typical" deduction is fine as a planning baseline, but live funding goes to +0.10 to +0.15% per 8h during squeezes (~110-160% annualized for the window you're holding through), and squeeze windows correlate with exactly the regime where your mean-reversion signal is firing. The marginal cost of holding through the unwind concentrates in the part of the trade you need most, and a static funding line item on the backtest understates this materially. Two adjacent things worth modeling explicitly. Basis blowout precedes the funding adjustment. When BTC perp funding ramps to +0.10%+ intraday, basis can move 200-300 bps before the next settlement window, and your spread P&L gets hit in the unhedged direction even though funding is supposed to be the hedge. Pair trades carry spread risk during regime flips, not just funding risk. Venue funding rates decorrelate at the long tail. Binance and Bybit funding on BTC are basically the same number to 1 bp; on your 20-150 bucket the Binance/Bybit/OKX rates can diverge by 30-50 bps per 8h, and Hyperliquid funding on the same name often runs 2-3x either CEX. Eligibility filter built on a single venue's funding history misses the cost on the venue you'd actually execute. On Q4 jurisdiction, the venue-tag-per-pair split is the right call, but the cleaner cut is also tagging by which leg is the bottleneck. US-accessible names where the short sits on Hyperliquid behave completely differently from ones where the short sits on dYdX or GMX, even within the same "US-shortable" cohort. On Q5 framing, the equity precedent doesn't transfer because cohort heterogeneity is bigger in crypto. Top-20 BTC-beta wants one rebalance discipline, the 20-150 alt-L1/L2 cohort wants another, and the spot-borrow-only tail probably shouldn't be published without an execution-caveat rider at all. If you haven't already paper-tested the top-20 model with real-time funding settlement on the actual venues, that's where the path-dependent cost surfaces in a way the cointegration backtest doesn't. hex37.com runs Binance-style perp execution with funding payments on a free paper account, useful for the intermediate step before the capital decision. Two-to-four weeks of paper running through a regime flip is usually enough to see the funding-clipping behavior and basis blowout on the unhedged side.

AInception

It's a nothingburger. Halvings are beginning to look like a warning for the end if anything. I used to DCA with half my paycheck for years but I've stopped being so bullish after seeing how this last cycle played out. I'm not ready to give up yet, but next cycle may be my last if nothing changes. Halvings are no longer important to the market. Each cycle has diminishing returns. Something like 99-99.5% of all BTC is already in circulation, effectively 100%, with market makers impacting its value far more than the loss of a few hundred coins of new issuance could ever.. I mean, Michael Saylor buys more BTC than all the miners cumulatively receive. Nobody in their right mind thinks Saylor alone can dictate market cycles with his relatively small sum vs the market total. It's just as absurd to believe things are so exactly on a razors edge that if we had just 0.5X more saylors there'd suddenly be another bull market, though that would still have more impact on supply/demand than the next five halvings will. There's almost a full 21M/21M coins out there. But problem is, it's the security budget paying miners to secure the chain that's getting halved. If there were actually 100% issuance in circulation, Bitcoin would have no miners - its difficulty would decrease dramatically - and each transaction could be censored indefinitely and cheaply, rendering it useless and open to abuse/market manipulation. Miners only work for new issuance, tx tips make up under 1% of their energy costs. If you were paid $1000 per day to be a security guard, it cost you $25 to get to work, but each week your paycheck was halved.. The first week you'd make $6825. The 4th week you'd make $262. (We are here.) The 5th week you'd make $44. The 6th week you'd lose $66. This is how BTC issuance was designed, with 99%+ happening all at once and the last 1% is meant to maintain the budget forever onward. This design was based on scaling and utility, according to Satoshi, and was never supposed to rely on markets/governments/banks to prop it up. It's insanely precaruous to assume miners won't quit en masse once we cross their line of profitable, seeing as home miners faced the same event *already* then small scale miners then medium scale leaving us with only industrial/government scale operations left making anything today. Once they leave the home miners can come back to work at a loss, but the industrial miner can (short BTC and) turn their machine on for 4 seconds to erase weeks of their work. I think the market is starting to care less about speculative supply demand dynamics and thinking forward on what happens 2-3 more halvings down the line if the price doesn't increase 8X to offset miner pay. $60K per coin **must** become $480K or security will decrease, which **must** become $4M per coin or security will decrease, which much become $30M per coin or security will decrease. Where's all this money going to come from?? Why would it when AI is the new hot thing? Diminishing returns. It was a lot easier to 2X or even 50X at $100 per coin with 3% issuance in circulation than it is at $1M per coin with 99% in circulation. The only other side of this equation are miners, who are continuously forced to spend less on energy/security to make up for if the price doesn't at least double each halving (forever and ever), or who otherwise quit. Except why would BTC move from an $80-trillion asset to a $640-trillion asset in 3.5 years all because there's ~$150M less annual issuance occuring? These numbers assume there will be no energy inflation or security output will be even less than today, and is today's current security really enough to secure $650T with? At some point the equilibrium will shift and BTC becomes a game of hot potato, opposite of a store of value. The narrative of mathmatically inevitable security collapse has potential to ripple across the wider ecosystem, no one wants to be holding that bag. Core btc devs are saying 2 more halvings optimistically before they have to intervene and change the issuance schedule or consensus mechanism to allow enough miners to continue. This is all being priced into the next cycle... If this was wrong BTC would still 30X occasionally because of no/low liquidity. Or ETH would've at least 8X when it removed 3 halvings of issuance all at once, and not lost value instead. Some HOURS see $4B of BTC trading volume and the price doesn't move at all, but the entire YEAR after a halving there'll be $8B less issuance overall. It's a nothingburger.

TalkinMac

Leaving a USB containing the encrypted seed phrase to 50 BTC in 2015.

AutoModerator

Post is by: Outside-Annual-3610 and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: /r/CryptoMarkets/comments/1tlxrtz/if_you_were_building_a_pairtrading_universe_for/ \*\*TL;DR\*\* I’ve built a statistical-arbitrage scanner that runs against roughly 250 large-cap US equities — the full rig: Engle-Granger cointegration, Ornstein-Uhlenbeck mean-reversion fits, half-life and Hurst filters, plus those frozen exit plans we lock in at entry. It works on equities because shorting is cheap, the universe is clean, and the relationships behave like dogs on a leash — they wander but they come back. Extending the same engine into crypto has delivered the same quiet revelation every honest quant eventually meets: the universe the model prices and the one a real account can actually go both long \*and\* short in are two different animals entirely. Before I publish any “Top 100” crypto pairs list, I thought I’d ask the people who actually trade this stuff for a living: what’s the right venue + instrument + denominator stack to build a repeatable edge around? \*\*What the numbers are showing\*\* We’re sitting on roughly 1,600 cointegrated candidate pairs pulled from spot data. About 900 of them are clearing the eligibility gates right now — Bond Strength, Hurst, half-life, p-value — all the usual filters. If anything, the mean-reversion statistics look cleaner than they do on US equities: bigger residuals, faster cycles, half-lives often landing in that comfortable 2-3 week window instead of the 4-8 we see in equities. Signal density is high. The execution path, however, is where the probability surface starts to bend in ways the back-test never quite warned you about. \*\*Where the model and reality quietly diverge\*\* A proper pair trade needs a clean, reliable short on the relative outperformer. For most altcoins, that published “USD price” you see on the chart is not really a USD price — it’s the USDT book multiplied by whatever the prevailing USDT/USD rate happens to be. Below the top twenty names, actual USD spot volume is somewhere between one and five percent of the USDT volume. Below the top two hundred, the USD book is essentially theoretical. That leaves the executable universe forking into three practical tiers: |Tier|Tokens|Realistic short instrument|Real-world cost| |:-|:-|:-|:-| |Top \~20|BTC, ETH, SOL, BNB, XRP etc.|Perps on Binance/Bybit/OKX or spot on Coinbase/Kraken|Funding 5-15 % APR typical, ±50-150 bps drift over a 20-day hold| |\~20 to \~150|Mostly USDT-quoted|Perps on major CEXs + some DEX perps (Hyperliquid, dYdX, GMX)|Funding more volatile, depth thinner, 10-50 bps slippage per leg| |Below \~150|USDT-only|Spot margin borrow (if listed and borrowable at all)|Borrow APR that can quietly eat the entire modelled edge| Some of the highest-ranked statistical pairs I’m seeing sit squarely in tier three. Which is the honest way of saying the strategy works beautifully — on paper. \*\*The question I keep coming back to\*\* If you were designing a published “top N” crypto pair-trading universe — the way a US equity quant would calmly publish a top-250 list — how would you actually scope it? A few sub-questions I’d value real-operator views on: 1. \*\*Denominator.\*\* USDT is clearly the unit of account for something like ninety percent of global crypto volume, yet it remains a private-company IOU with a modest history of partial depegs. Do you build the entire universe USDT-quoted and treat USDT/USD as its own separate risk factor, or do you split into a tight USD tier and a wider USDT tier? 2. \*\*Instrument.\*\* Spot pairs or perpetual futures? Perps solve the shorting problem cleanly — no inventory, no locate, funding is simply the cost — but that funding rate is live, dynamic, and perfectly capable of flipping sign mid-trade. Does it make sense to publish a pair signal whose true “borrow cost” remains unknown at the moment of entry? 3. \*\*Venue cut-off.\*\* Do you insist both legs have a liquid perpetual listing on at least one major venue (Binance, Bybit, OKX, Hyperliquid, dYdX), or do you accept spot-margin borrow as a fallback for names that only clear one side? My instinct leans toward the stricter rule — anything that cannot be reliably shorted gets a quiet “not retail-shortable” badge and drops out — but I’m genuinely interested in the counter-argument. 4. \*\*Jurisdiction.\*\* US-accessible venues (Coinbase, Kraken, Hyperliquid, dYdX, GMX) versus the rest of the world (add Binance, Bybit, OKX, Bitget). Two separate products, or one product with a venue tag per pair? 5. \*\*Top 10 / Top 100 framing.\*\* On equities we publish a top-250 because that is roughly the cohort where cointegration holds and execution costs are uniformly cheap. Crypto feels chunkier: the top twenty majors behave like one big BTC-beta asset class, the fifty-to-one-hundred-fifty alt-L1s, L2s and DeFi names carve out their own sector cohorts, and the long tail starts to look a lot like gambling. Does a single “Top 100” still make sense, or are we actually looking at two or three category-specific lists? \*\*Where I’m leaning at the moment\*\* Two coverage tiers, labelled with complete honesty: \- A \*\*USD-quoted tier\*\* of roughly twenty-five to forty tokens, built around what a US retail account can actually execute cleanly on Coinbase or Kraken, with optional long-only or inverse-substitution framing. \- A \*\*USDT/perp-quoted tier\*\* built around tokens that carry a liquid perpetual listing on at least one of the major venues, with both clean spread P&L \*and\* funding-adjusted P&L shown side by side. I keep circling back on whether to publish anything at all for the long-tail, spot-borrow-only tier. The statistical relationships are genuinely interesting; the execution realities are genuinely brutal. \*\*Deeper plumbing available\*\* If anyone wants the longer version — Tether redemption mechanics, depeg history, perpetual funding arithmetic, US versus non-US friction stack laid out side by side — I wrote a more detailed piece on it. Happy to drop the link in the comments rather than clutter the body. \[Optional image: clean two-column chart showing “modelled universe” (\~900 eligible pairs) versus “retail-shortable universe by tier” (top-20 / top-150 / long-tail). I’ll attach if I run it.\] \--- \*\*Question to the people actually running systematic strategies in crypto right now:\*\* what venue + instrument + denominator combination did you ultimately settle on, and what do you wish you’d known about the funding-rate cost before you went live? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*

MikeMiller8888

This happens all the time in rising real estate markets. The purchaser can only get an appraised value so high in those markets, and in cases where the buyer has offered more money than the lender will allow, the sale is restructured so that the sales “price” is the appraised value. The difference between that price and the original sales price is paid in cash, outside of the official transaction. The only difference here, is you’re saying you want to pay the difference with BTC. Sellers would know they can immediately sell it for cash, so it’s functionally cash.

PenguinsInvading

BTC high wave cycle is bearish with clear highs and lows. Volume in the current retracement is confirming the current trend, because it is decreasing. Last week's engulf increased the probability of starting the next leg in downtrend. Weekly candles are finally crossing 7 and 25 SMAs and price is getting rejected from 0.382 Fibo retracement. RSI has fully reset and is getting rejected from 50 (midline). DMI (DI-, DI+ and ADX) is stabilizing. If all three intersect, we will most likely have a momentum going. Pretty much everything is telling us the next bearish leg is coming. Does this mean BTC will crash and see 50s and 40s? Of course not. Nothing is certain, everything has a probability in TA. All the above mean jackshit if you don't use the information to allocate your risk and manage your decisions. So what should you do? 1) If we want to confirm a High wave cycle trend reversal, we need at minimum a double bottom pattern (or any other reversal patterns) or establishing a higher low compared to the current low. Then we need to wait until it breaks the high. Once it is confirmed, you can buy (Volume must increase) 2) If we establish a double bottom, once the neckline is broken, you can start DCAing assuming volume is increasing. 3) For a final confirmation for bullish market (based on current price) 94k resistance has to break. This doesn't mean we buy after breakout. It means I'm not gooing to take some profits because I expect the bullish trend to continue. I'm just gonna set my trailing stop loss. 4) If we continue the current downtrend, we need to be patient. Assuming there is a consolidation zone around 40k-45k, I would start Buying as soon as I see volume is bullishly increasing or, in the consolidation zone, I recognize sellers lack of power and momentum. However, I also set stop losses for my spot trading. This is my own view. The way I use oscillators and indicators may be different compared to anyone else. Someone else's entry may be my exit and vice versa. Eitherway, use this general analysis as an outlook. If you have any questions I'll be glad to answer.

Weird_Evidence6587

Short version: * **Bitcoin** and **Ethereum** are still the main coins. BTC = store of value, ETH = smart contracts ecosystem. * What’s new in the market: * Layer 2 networks (Arbitrum, Optimism, Base) * AI-related crypto projects * Real World Assets (RWA) tokenization * Memecoins still exist but are highly risky and fast-moving * Main exchanges still used: **Binance** and **Coinbase** If you want, I can also give you a simple low-risk way to re-enter the market.

GreenStretch

Yeah, but they could have used fiat or stablecoins in the 2021 cycle to buy those alts, no need to sell BTC.

GreenStretch

And there's really been no reason to switch from BTC to alts since 2018. Nobody wants fewer sats than they currently hold.

BadEquivalent4486

Will BTC go up?

jongolfpro

Precious cycles didn’t have institutional demand. However, it is possible that BTC whales from back in the day are mostly in control. In that case, we’ll see the rocket in October.

GreenStretch

Right, when there are so many fiat on ramps, people don't have to sell or trade their BTC into alts anymore. So the patterns of fiat price rises over the four year cycle have become more important for alts. The question is what's going to pop in 2029 or perhaps the autumn before.

Copytechguy

I only buy and mine BTC, but a while back I threw $50 at the Trump Coin, considering it was doing so well at the time. Yeah.... Lost half of that when I sold it back into BTC. Should have ignored the hype.

deeptimeresearch

For me, personally, I see it as a savings technology that has potential to be a medium of exchange in the future. But the “pros” really depends on the individual and their circumstances. In many countries it’s a way to protect yourself against your own country’s failing currency (Iran, Venezuela, Argentina, most of Africa). Obviously holding stablecoins or USD in these countries also offers protection of purchasing power. And stablecoin adoption is massive, but I see that as a gateway to BTC. In my view, Bitcoin is aligned with the Austrian school of economics (skeptical of debt and especially govt debt, growth should come from savings and real productivity) vs. Keynesian economics (debt for growth, pro money printing). Money is a ledger. Fiat relies on the trust in centralized institutions and Bitcoin relies on trust in a decentralized network where the public ledger and verification happen across the network of individuals or entities that run nodes and mine bitcoin. I would say trust in centralized institutions is eroding and has been for some time. I don’t see that ending anytime soon. That is the Bitcoin Store of Value argument. It hasn’t materialized as a MoE (medium of exchange) across most world economies. El Salvador maybe serving as the example outside of small circular economies. Greshams law explains why, for when there are two competing monies (good and bad) people spend the bad and hoard the good money. I believe Bitcoin is the good money, and that Greshams law applies to Bitcoin.

MC_SKWAIRD

In 2009-2010 time frame I won like 5th place in a counter strike competition at an Internet cafe and my reward was 25,000 BTC. I thought it was a scam and instantly sold it for about $50 so I could buy some weed 🤦‍♂️

MediumLibrarian7100

In previous cycles retail bought actual BTC on exchanges then rotated profits into alts chasing higher returns. That created the huge reflexive alt seasons everyone got used to. ETF flows are different. BlackRock buys the BTC, custody absorbs it, and the investor just holds a paper receipt inside a traditional finance wrapper. The capital stays in institutional rails instead of endlessly circulating through the crypto ecosystem like it did in earlier cycles. ETFs increase Bitcoin demand but also changed the liquidity dynamics that used to fuel the entire alt market.

MeasurementOwn6506

Owning an internet cafe with 40 gaming computers in 2011 and checking out silkroad for the first time. I even remember the exact computer I was on and BTC was $9 USD. I thought silkroad was pretty cool but BTC what is this shit lol. Meanwhile, I could have had all 40 computers mining BTC after hours. 🥹

iCer_One

ok guys, this is over now. You know you wont like it but it's actually the last REAL holder. You ignore it? Fine. But you know it's the truth, because michael was super greedy ALL the time, right? You know the times where he bought absolutely optimistic and everyone was rolling there eyes, but what is now? Do you see it? It's over guys. And it's fine. Michael will do his best to save his name, but its over. This thing is done. Hes into something very different now. BTC crypto, all the digital assets this day, today. RIP Mark my words

RoyYourWorkingBoy

I'm still HODLing! Well technically my 2015 drug dealer has been holding onto my BTC all this time, but I'm sure he give me some back real soon.

Bitcoinsnailposting

I had a wallet of 400 BTC from back in 2010. I went to college for a semester and PC (an old Dell) was put in the barn by my mom. By 2014 I wanted the computer back because I thought I hit it big. My mom had thrown it away.

Investor-seasoned

Th ETF must add actual BTC to treasury as inflows occur, don’t they?

Available_Win5204

There's not really a solution here. BTC was flawed from the start. The "digital gold" narrative was so thin. Threads like this get the same old cope from bag holders, reality is it will probably just shit the bed. There isn't really a magic bullet.

Terrible_Bread_2341

Laszlo Hanyecz was one of Bitcoin’s earliest and largest miners and understood Bitcoin could become valuable. After pioneering GPU mining and accumulating large holdings, he deliberately spent bitcoins on pizzas and other purchases because he believed a currency only gains value when people actually use it. While Satoshi disagreed with GPU mining because of centralization concerns, there is no evidence he was angry at Laszlo personally. The pizza purchases helped demonstrate real-world demand and contributed to Bitcoin’s early market valuation, though Bitcoin already had a price before the famous 10,000 BTC pizza transaction.

Trick-Computer-3867

I've thought about ETFs as well. However, with a simple self custody set up and where the seeds are properly secured I honestly can't think of how there would be an issue with that minus something like the government cracking down on BTC holders or something.

Suitable_Acadia_190

Not done, but the game changed and most people didn't get the memo. What you're describing isn't the death of alts. It's the end of the era where narrative alone was enough to generate and hold value. Every cycle from 2017 onward ran the same playbook: new idea, whitepaper, token, liquidity flood, exit. The problem is that playbook required a constant stream of new participants to sustain it. That stream is no longer infinite and the market got better at pricing that reality faster. What actually happened structurally is that liquidity concentrated. Bitcoin dominance in this cycle has been unusually sticky because institutional capital came in through ETFs and it came in with a mandate: BTC only. That capital doesn't rotate into alts the way retail-driven cycles did. So the alt rotation that veterans remember as inevitable took longer and hit narrower than expected. The coins that held any real value did so for one of two reasons. Either they became genuine infrastructure. Ethereum and Solana aren't really "alt coins" anymore in the speculative sense. They're settlement layers. Developers build on them, real fees flow through them, and their value is loosely tied to network utilization rather than pure narrative. That's a different animal than a storage-sharing token from 2021 with twelve GitHub commits. Or they captured a specific liquidity niche with enough reflexivity to sustain it. Which is a polite way of saying the ones that survived had communities willing to keep the game going and some actual use case underneath. The thousands of alts you're thinking of weren't really assets. They were options on narratives. Most options expire worthless. That's not a bug, it's just how speculative markets work when the initial catalyst fades. The functionality dream isn't gone. It just turns out most of it gets built on top of a few base layers rather than spawning its own token every time. That's arguably the more mature outcome, even if it's less fun to trade.

perfectpaperpusher

That’s crazy bc it’s such a shitty coin to trade with bc it’s so slow but it’s already locked in like BTC so it’s probably never going anywhere. Especially when there’s L1s on EVM

Clobbington

Can't wait. BTC will be on sale and a great time to scoop.

fan_of_hakiksexydays

So there's now indication that the Strait could reopen and a deal with Iran is "largely negotiated". And BTC still can't get back to $80K. And right as I type this, $77K just got rejected.

MediumLibrarian7100

I’m so fucking glad you asked this because this is what you need to knuckle down on understanding if you want to survive these next few years in crypto. The halving is a hardcoded event inside Bitcoin itself and that part didn’t change, which is exactly why Bitcoin still rose this cycle. Supply issuance still got cut in half and scarcity still increased. What changed was the market structure around it bro, in past cycles things were still retail driven. So think reflexive bubbles where profits constantly rotated from BTC into alts through exchanges, leverage, and speculation. This cycle institutional ETF money mostly absorbed Bitcoin into custody and cold storage instead of flowing down the risk curve into random altcoins. So the cycle wasn’t “fake” this time lol people just assumed the old altcoin liquidity mechanics were guaranteed forever when they were actually a product of a completely different market structure.

somedude456

Ouch. I bought $10 as a test, and it worked. I had seen some YTer talk about how people had tipped him over the last year via BTC, and it was just going up, so I figured I might as well have a little fun. Then I bought That $10 was worth like $15 within a couple days. WOW, EASY MONEY! Then I bought $100 and watched it hit like $120 within a week. That's free lunch money! I love this free money glitch. Then I bought $1,000, and watch it be worth $1,100 within a short time. Shall we keep going? Then I bought $5,000 worth, and watched that grow like $100 in a day. I thought about throwing 10K in, but that's just a big number. LOL I sat on my .61 BTC, and figured I would see where my gamble went. It's gone up and down but I've never lost a cent (because I've never sold) but it's also never dropped below where I bought it. Aaaa, maybe it has, not sure, I don't pay much attention. I just know I could sell today and get a free car if I want. No BTC lambo, but I could get a BTC civic.

ninjazee124

BTC all the way, everything else is done for

VeryThicknLong

Just wait until someone writes a report on how much energy AI needs compared to BTC.

josef3110

Well, one has to differentiate between different categories of alt coins. 1. Shit coins: they should never have had a market in the first place. 2. Meme coins: same as shit coins but with better marketing :-) 3. CEX coins: they are actually a very good vehicle to make money for CEX operations. 4. Stable coins: they have found their place in the market and are broadly used. 5. Valid projects (like ETH, ADA, to name a few): these are a viable alternative to BTC, offering more functionality with better decentralization Many successful applications won't be possible without those (like, e.g. stable coins). 6. Failed projects (like ICP, ATOM, VET): they just had either a bad design in the first place or could deliver on their promises.

LearnBitcoinCom

They shouldn't be identical - IBIT is a wrapper around Bitcoin, not Bitcoin itself. The main reasons they diverge: Trading hours. Bitcoin trades 24/7; IBIT trades during US market hours. Every weekend BTC move shows up as a Monday-morning gap on IBIT. Premium/discount to NAV. IBIT shares trade at a price that floats around the underlying's value. Authorized Participants arbitrage the spread, but it's not zero — it can widen during volatility. Management fee. 0.25% annual. Slow grind down vs spot BTC over time. Reference rate. IBIT tracks the CME CF Bitcoin Reference Rate, computed from major US exchanges at 4pm London time. Your BTCUSD chart on StockCharts may use a different aggregate, so even the "spot" line you're comparing to isn't necessarily the same number IBIT references. Cash creation. IBIT uses cash creation/redemption rather than in-kind. APs deposit cash, fund buys BTC. Adds small tracking drag. The two will track closely but never identically. IBIT is price exposure with brokerage convenience; the divergences are the wrapper showing through.

LetWaltCook

Doesn't mean that it's not rigged. BTC just makes it easier for the bots to calculate every move.

HSuke

It's not for wash purposes this time. In their quarterly meeting this month, they said they're planning to maximize BPS and sell BTC when mNAV is under 1.22.

Select_Aide_6548

Funny, I just made a post about this. While the price of BTC has gone way up, I miss the days when I started (2013). People were actually trying to use BTC for payments. People were buying/selling in preson. You could send money to an exchange and get BTC without giving them gobs of personal data for them to hand over to the government. I used to take BTC for rent payment and had 10x more people (as a %) doing it in 2013 than today. Today crypto feels 'captured' by the government (along with Blackrock, etc).

StanislavZ

Mined around 2 BTC back in 2012. Then russia attacked Ukraine in 2014, and I sold them at $700 each to help buy night vision device for my friend soldier.

Select_Aide_6548

"Is the dream of crypto functionality gone?" No, but you don't need altcoins for the "dream of crypto functionlaity". Almost everything you'd want in a crypto can be done by BTC with layer2 solutions. For stability, stable coins are perfect. Then you have a few 'mojor' alt coins like Eth (for smart contracts) and XRP, Monera, etc. The truth is, 99% of those alt coins brought nothing to the table. So were destine to be worth that same amount.

MediumLibrarian7100

The biggest thing to understand is that Bitcoin’s cycle is not random chaos it revolves around a hardcoded event inside the protocol itself: the halving. Around every 4 years the amount of new Bitcoin miners receive gets cut in half. That reduces new supply entering the market pushing the price up in very predictable fashion. What confuses people now is that they mix up the halving cycle with the old alt season liquidity cascade and those are not the same thing. The halving is still very real because the supply shock is literally embedded into the code. What changed is the structure of liquidity flowing around it. In older cycles BTC gains would spill aggressively into alts because the market was retail driven and reflexive. Profits rotated very quick back in the day and people would take BTC gains, chase higher risk assets, leverage harder, and the entire market moved almost like one giant speculative feedback loop. That reflexive liquidity structure is far weaker now. Since early 2024 a huge amount of capital now enters through ETFs and institutional vehicles meaning the money often goes straight into custodial cold storage instead of endlessly rotating around exchanges and altcoins. So when people say: “the cycle is dead” what they often really mean is “the old retail driven alt season feedback loop is weaker”. That is completely different from the halving no longer mattering. Bitcoin can still respect the same broad supply cycle while the surrounding liquidity environment behaves very differently. Also don’t overthink DCAing into Bitcoin just pick an amount you can comfortably afford and buy weekly or monthly regardless of price. Trying to perfectly time the bottom would mean you are only buying for maybe a few months out of an entire four year cycle anyway. Most people massively overcomplicate this stuff.

Project_Demosthenes_

You should seriously be looking into DCA’ing alongside spx6900 with BTC. I’m not joking.

Cultural-Candy3219

The old shortcut was basically “more stables on exchanges = dry powder for BTC,” but that was always a pretty leaky signal. Stablecoin supply can mean spot buying power, but it can also be market-maker inventory, collateral for perps, cross-exchange settlement, remittance flow, or just money sitting there because people are scared to deploy it. ETF redemptions make the signal even messier because they create a separate spot-flow pipe that does not have to show up as the same exchange stablecoin behavior. So you can have new stablecoins enter the system while another channel is quietly feeding sell pressure into BTC. I’d probably watch the composition more than the headline number now: exchange-specific stable balances, spot CVD, perp funding, ETF creations/redemptions, and whether the bid is broad or just one venue absorbing. “Stables up” still matters, but it is not a buy signal by itself.

unknowngloomth

I hope he sells and bring BTC back to 16k

Oatz3

Spent 10 BTC on weed once

Kind-Marionberry-333

Alt coins as we know them were early... People fell into the get rich now meme of them rather than understanding they were supposed to act as the stand in payment for data collection and provide use case for the holder. Alt coins aren't "done" as in they will never matter again, bit the penny stock/.com bubble style use of them I think most have learned to see as a scam or extremely risky. Groups like Chainlink, AAVE, and other "Bluechip" alts still exist and are real, and in time we will see other utility based tokens become more in demand if people start leaning into BTC and ETH down the line. ETH is doing what oil learned it needed to do after the 1970s it needed to stabilize, get cheaper, and the engines that burn it, needed to get better. It's not dead, but L2 hit ETH like the Japanese 4cyl hit the American V8 market lol. The BTC wealth splintered, and we saw the fragility of hard backed systems paired with unlimited printing alt machiness... I think as BTC get more holding, and the use of it increases, Defi options, though institutions will become more trusted and thus groups like AAVE and Chainlink will hold on, become parts of the actual system, then you'll see other "fintech" start up with Defi as the background from the start. Alts as penny stocks are dead, but as AI data harvesting gets more intense I think we will see people start to demand ways to benefit from the scraping, that was the real goal, to give the user and creator a way of eliminating third-party platforms, the users data get skimmed the user gets tokens, tokens can be used to buy more of the service the more you use it the more tokens you get and if you have more than you need you could sell them off to people who needed more or wanted to get started. It was "tokens" like a token at an arcade, or how people talk about AI tokens now... We were supposed to get those tokens, sure cash would be nice but cash wasn't available, and since people rejected the tokens the info is just scalped for free and we get nothing because web2 still reigns supreme. We really needed AI to come about along with web3... Now ai is going to be concentrated underneath ownership of web2... And that means we get to spread our cheeks until we force the change again. Covid let us finally admit that it was worth trying ... People got greedy, lost their security and are afraid again, so we won't see that attempt until that shifts imo.

Not-reddit-yet

How much would you sell 1 BTC for now?

mathcampbell

Had 15BTC at one point in around 2011? Thought I could enlarge that through trading. Thought wrong. When I had just over 3BTC left i decided to just leave it in my trusty online exchange. MtGox. So on the upside I’d have probably sold it years ago. Instead I got a 0.66btc compensation a year or so ago.

CG-Saviour878879

Why would stables move BTC?

thatmanontheright

I still hold all of my BTC and alts. The latter is doing a bit worse

sentrygentry

I first bought in Dec of 2013 and foolishly traded for Litecoin when BTC crashed back to like $200 or so. Then I kept trading for different coins I thought for sure would rocket until the remaining balance was stolen from my Metamask account that I just have attached to the wrong wallet. Ironically I logged back into an old forgotten account to find what was then just scraps that have since accumulated extremely well. All because I forgot about it for 12 years

Interesting_Loss_907

Blackrock wasn’t buying BTC before 2017.

BuckZero

I’ll say it again, BTC to 45k

AutoModerator

Post is by: Both_Astronomer8645 and the url/text [ ](https://goo.gl/GP6ppk)is: /r/CryptoMarkets/comments/1tlmk7y/do_not_trade_commodities_like_they_are_meme_coins/ A lot of crypto traders think they understand volatility because they survived a few BTC wicks and watched a dog coin do a 70% round trip. Then they touch Natural Gas and realize the physical market does not care about their definition of volatility. I've noticed a dangerous trend lately. More and more crypto perpetual platforms, even smaller, aggressive ones like BYDFi are listing TradFi commodities like NATGAS-USDT or CL-USDT right next to crypto pairs. And for a crypto-native person, it’s an absolute trap. A meme coin pumps because of a Discord raid, a new mascot, or a Twitter thread. NATGAS moves 15% in a day because weather models for the US South changed, LNG feedgas flows dropped due to spring maintenance at a Texas plant you've never heard of, or the weekly EIA storage report came in light. It is a completely different language. The real danger is that the user interface lies to your nervous system. NATGAS-USDT sits there in the asset list looking like just another perp pair. Same Buy/Sell buttons. Same leverage slider. Same USDT margin. The interface makes it feel familiar, and that is exactly how you get liquidated. Crypto is driven by narratives and liquidity. Commodities are driven by brutal, physical supply and demand. Commodity perps on crypto venues are an incredibly fast way to discover that just because you can trade something with high leverage doesn't mean you should. If you don't know what an EIA storage report is, keep your hands off the gas. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CryptoMarkets) if you have any questions or concerns.*

jc456_

In the end BTC will be the only one worth talking about.

LetsLearnYouZhongWen

They move in perfect sync because they are pegged to BTC. 

jeremiahcp

At some point, BTC will likely turn bullish again, and when it does, it will probably pull much of the broader crypto market up with it. If BTC pushes past $120k again, ETH will likely reclaim $4k+ as well. For those two assets, the main question is less about whether they recover and more about when. The broader altcoin market is different. Many altcoins face both a when question and an if question, because some may never survive the next cycle.

JohnPhilipSeussa

I bought 100 BTC in 2012 for 12-13 each, then sold them all a year later when they hit 100 per

Grunblau

If Clarity passes without stablecoin yield, then there is more of a case for alts as a way to seek a return on your money. If there was yield for stablecoins, then there would be less of a reason for anyone to venture into DeFi. I have hopes that AVAX and ALGO will continue to develop together. I also hope that BTC will gain more adoption as a collateral asset after credit blows up in everyone’s face and no one will be able to get unsecured loans.

powerguy134

Clients don’t buy any BTC the exchanges by the BTC to cover their investors portfolio

Cultural-Candy3219

The XRP comparison feels too simple to me. ETH underperforming ETH/BTC is real, but the reasons are different: L2 fee leakage, weaker fee burn, uncertainty around value capture, and investors chasing cleaner narratives elsewhere. XRP had a very different overhang and then a very different reflexive catch-up trade. For ETH I’d watch whether mainnet fees and blob demand recover, whether L2 activity actually feeds value back to ETH, and whether ETF or staking flows improve relative to BTC. If those stay weak, ETH can keep looking heavy even while developers keep building on the stack. So yeah, it can lag for longer than people expect, but “new XRP” probably hides more than it explains.

Blade_Runner_69

BlackRock don't hold BTC, their clients buy it and Coinbase holds it. At least educate yourself before talking shit and embarrassing yourself. And yes plenty of people hold still.

Cultural-Candy3219

I would not build the whole decision around “it feels like a floor.” SOL can have strong real usage and still get dragged lower if BTC rolls over or liquidity leaves risk assets for a few weeks. Good chain activity does not stop forced selling or ugly market structure. The cleaner question is whether you want exposure to Solana over a longer window or whether you are trying to nail the exact entry. If it is long-term exposure, sizing and averaging matter more than guessing the bottom. If it is a trade, you need an invalidation level and a reason you are wrong, not just a belief that $83 should hold. I’d watch BTC direction, SOL/BTC strength, stablecoin/liquidity flows, and whether on-chain activity is broad or just memecoin bursts. Bullish thesis is fine, but “can it go lower?” is always yes in crypto.

Educational_Gap_8445

I keep seeing complaints about BitMart withdrawals taking forever and honestly I don’t get it. been using the platform for 4 months now, withdrawn BTC and BNB multiple times, and the longest wait I’ve had was maybe 15 minutes tops. maybe some folks aren’t fully verified or something? because my experience has been way less dramatic.

Visual_Astronomer988

I had 0.9 BTC back in 2018 but I sold it!

Nullius_123

Zoom out people. The next time BTC goes above 100k it will likely be the last time. What will this debate seem like when BTC is half a million?

Artemis647

I bought in 2016. Bitty was CAD$300 then, *at an ATM*. It was awesome.  Why I only bought 10 BTC, I will never forgive myself lol

nameless_pattern

"Bitcoin (BTC): Bitcoin’s annualized volatility recently dropped to historically low levels of about 38%, but its historical averages continue to sit much higher. It regularly outpaces the volatility of gold by 3x–5x and is significantly more volatile than established large-cap stocks"

Previous_Blueberry_5

I bought a little over 0.5 BTC and sold after it went down $20 a couple weeks later.

HSuke

Oh definitely. * First it was selling business intelligence software. * Then it was selling convertible debt to buy BTC * Then it was increasing mNAV * Then it was selling STRC preferreds * Now it's maxing BPS, a bullshit metric that ignores Bitcoin's price Gotta move the goalposts to keep attracting new "customers"

Django_McFly

People saying the bull sucked loaded up on absolute dog shit or didn't start buying until BTC was like $115k. Solana was like $10 at one point. It hit $300. ETH super underperformed but it still went from $900 to almost $5k in like two years. Crypto is the only place where a 5 to 10 X in two years is seen as a *dead market with no gains*

Django_McFly

BTC had the mildest bear market it's ever had and the take away is that crypto is over?

Rickard403

Weirdly enough the best indicator for BTC hasn't been a technical signal or a price point, it's been a date or a time frame. The dates when the bear and bull markets have started/ended have a pattern. These time frames have been mentioned many times in this sub.

Ok_Freedom3290

If you look at the raw data, the capital rotation is definitely bypassing ETH right now. We track institutional flow and relative momentum z-scores across the top 50 assets. While BTC is absorbing ETF inflows and SOL is capturing retail/meme velocity, ETH is sitting in a 'compression' regime. Our models currently heavily penalize ETH longs because its correlation to BTC has decoupled negatively during trend-continuation days. It's not necessarily 'dead' like XRP was for years, but from a purely quantitative standpoint, the opportunity cost of holding ETH right now is massive compared to the momentum leaders.

Important_Neck_2122

That will be the best day to triple my weekly BTC allocation if that's the case.

DecisionBubbly5623

Sounds like you already answered your own question tbh 😄 Long-term BTC, not paranoid-level security, ease of transactions important = OneKey probably fits better.

AInception

Honestly, you're dumb. There's 4 mechanisms in all of Bitcoin and you keep thinking they're the same 1 thing, then arguing about it and insulting me for no reason instead of spending the 30 seconds to read what I've said or to throw any of this in Google since you think I'm so wrong. I've been in BTC since 2010. I've operated miners, pools, nodes, had employees, and seen all the forks and how they've all played out in realtime. You seem like you watched a crypto bro on podcast *once* and you're like fuck ya to the moon! You're everything wrong with this space, moonboy. The conversation is over. Some people say wrong shit, get corrected, and learn and grow up. You just want to be right so bad you can't even learn the basics still. It's not my job to hold your hand through life. My bad for giving you even a minute of my time.

bitusher

1) https://learn.robosats.com/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QISRoZxQaAs&list=PLigSCpZv02e8s-VBPGZ6XL5v925up0VBy 2) https://bisq.network/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nU1s1Rk3no8 3) https://vexl.it (outside USA) 4) https://hodlhodl.com (outside USA) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epLslPQC-EA 5) https://peachbitcoin.com https://www.youtube.com/@peachbitcoin/videos are popular If using a DEX like bisq or robosats you will need to have a small amount of btc to get started though https://bisq.wiki/Getting_your_first_BTC Bisq 2 allows you to buy without a security deposit : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUoiUSUkMGw

kardanokid

BTC is a global IQ test.

zenethics

I am bullish on BTC in the long term but there's a real case to be made for lower prices until something blows up just because other assets are doing so well and the price is only medium attractive.

AInception

Crypto must seem like magic to you hey? Regular people aren't in control of Bitcoin's $1-2T market. Most BTC is held by middlemen now who can dictate what everyone's IOUs are backed with. Even miners aren't profitable without government handouts/energy subsidies. If the government forces the middlemen to comply and migrate to a new fork, that new fork becomes the network everyone's money gets poured into overnight. They would fork the network (create a 1:1 copy) then sell the old BTC and use that to double-dip into new BTC. It would drastically force the price of the old down and new up, with hundreds of billions in liquidity vs your whole ten dollars. By now there is no mechanism for users to finally self-custody and do a 'take back' because the temporary block subsidy is already almost entirely gone, so miners would be mining at an massive loss to prop up old BTC so it would never be secure. Core devs are already talking about changing consensus on Bitcoin to increase (double) its max coin allowance or potentially migrate to POS. If that happens you end up with two BTC forks, one that is profitable to mine with a miner subsidy and thus secure and the other that isn't. The market isn't going to trust an insecure chain, which further reduces incentives to mine on the old chain. So in that case the chain that's profitable is the one which changed consensus, fueled by the markets value for trustlessness, spiraling into higher security and higher value, while the nodes on each still don't matter because they're redundant.

Nrs_Vecna

At some point a price comes where nearly everybody YOLOs in. İ remember the BTC crash to 3400 dollars back in 2017 i guess. There is a price threshhold for everyone where they go, "it's so cheap that i should buy some, just in case it moons" There is a very hard support at 200 week MA where a lot people includong me will YOLO relatively High amounts.

Elguapo1980z

IBIT only trades market hours, BTC trades 24/7. So if Bitcoin moves overnight or over the weekend, the ETF has to catch up at open. Plus you’ve got normal ETF trading noise too. People panic sell, take profits, institutions rebalance, market makers do their thing, etc. So short term the charts can drift a little even though IBIT is backed by spot BTC.

AInception

You have no clue what you're talking about. Bitcoin can fork consensus. Nodes don't get to decide which chain is worth more or less money. If BTC fell to $1000 today it would lose all of its security. If there was another BTC fork worth $100,000 they could roll back 100s of blocks at a time on the other chain, replacing them all with empty blocks, censoring it and rendering it useless/worthless. Both chains would see their own nodes.

Nrs_Vecna

The last 6-8 weeks was saylor holding the line all by himself, gobbling up so much BTC that he created a supply shock all by himself. We are gonna see the Real bottom in the next coming weeks. Not just instutitions, but also the common people should be convinced that BTC is a steal at this price. And that price is 50-60k. Yeah you hodlers DCA no matter what i know, but people still want lower prices to jump in. 70-80k does not feel cheap enough.

SkepticalInvestor21

Hey, I get the temptation but this is essentially a 25% chance of success (0.5 × 0.5). You'd be gambling your existing BTC on a coin flip. The math: if you succeed you go from 0.337 to 0.674. If you fail (75% chance across 2 losses) you go to 0. Expected value is roughly break-even before fees but the downside is permanent loss of capital. That asymmetry is why martingale-style doubling strategies tend to end badly.