he didn't just lose $400,000, assuming the calc is correct.
Occam's Razor indicates he also lost control of 30000 BTC. that's even more important. i don't buy the idea he bought his own wall. too much lost in fees when he could just've taken it down. and he could've backed it up for a higher price.
I think he lost control of ~15k BTC or so, with a good risk of not being able to buy them back < $300
So what's your best guess as to the cause of that wall?
Me, I'm thinking a very early adopter who recently had a big life change, got married planning kids or something? Thought he'd like his new family to live in style.
my best guess was that it was a non-economic actor trying to suppress the price. why?
1. as said before, it was an irrational way to sell. should've been done surreptitiously in smaller chunks on the way up in price action.
2. the wall was set below all other exchanges by about 4-4.5%. why take a loss when he could've just backed the wall up to $311 or so where all the other exchanges were priced?
3. early adopters are inherently bullish and have lived thru about 4 previous episodes of this. we never got down far enough for them to be in a red position for the most part in order to panic.
4. all the other early adopter addresses were increasing their positions over the last 6 mo. why would this guy be any different?
5.
the coordinated trolling we have been beset with here on the forum which has now suspiciously disappeared abruptly for the most part. their message was incessant and irrational and thus highly suspicious in character. i could tell these guys had no real idea what they were talking about as not one of their arguments came from a technical level meaning they don't really understand Bitcoin. early adopters do understand these things for the most part.
6. an early adopter would not have gone out and hired trolls like that if he were panic selling. early adopters tend to work alone and are generally smarter than this. they wouldn't troll the price down.
7. this is what non-economic actors do to disrupt markets they don't like. we already know this and the playbook is wide open. they don't go out and build mines to perform 51% attacks. it's easier to create financial havoc.
Show Posts
