I personally never understood the high price and I still don't understand why it's still high and I expect it to go down.
Some representatives of the banking oligopoly have invested in ethereum. They will try to play same price control game between bitcoin and ethereum as they do between gold and silver. The dao fiasco was quite painful for them but they have a lot of fiat and will not give up easily.
Interesting theory. But let's try it with some logic here.
1. Professionals of the banking-system invested in Ethereum?
It's possible. And I don't have much doubt that there are not only Crypto-people on Polo but also Professionals from stock-markets or whatever. At least it's obvious that there is some bigger money and it's also obvious that most of it is traded in Ethereum - nothing comes close regarding ETH's volume.
2. Would they back the price in risk-times, when fundamentals bring a lot of uncertainty in the market plus the possibility that Bitcoin could shoot up plus a chart that already looked unhealthy when DAO launched and now even more - double-top?Maybe I'm wrong and there is not that kind of backing but exactly that is my impression - that "helping hands" show up as buy-support when real problems showing up, to bring certainty into the market.
If that should be true I wouldn't expect it from professional traders if they don't have at least Insider-Infos - very close connections to those who really have the power, VB and his guys.
Thing is: If there is money backing and price-manipulation my conclusion would be:
a) Those who have the control over the code also have the money to have some control about the price
b) If it should be about banking-profis, I would assume that they have access to Insider-Infos or wouldn't take such a risk with much money.
a) and b) wouldn't differ much.
3. Would professionals have bought into the DAO? That's something I would say: Never. Why? Because I'm not a professional. Not even close. But for me it was safe that TheDAO would turn out as a bad investment (and I warned, not just saying it now after all what went wrong), and I did not think much about potential security risks, just a very simple economical conclusion:
a) It was funded with ETH so the DAO-price would be totally connected to and fluctuate with the ETH-price.
b) The ETH-price already didn't look too good. It was about to build a double-top.
c) Most important: There never was a reason why the DAO should be worth more than exactly the ETH it was funded with. It would have been totally irrational to expect that the DAO-price would go above it's funding.
d) Also important: Every time theDAO would have invested like it was planned, let's say in slock.it first, it would have "lost" some of those funds. That would have lowered it's marketcap, whil......
e) ...all investments would have been longterm and with all risks involved. If return with profit it would have taken some time.
f) It was a social experiment and all the nice words could not cover that there would have been a lot of fights and a lot of manipulative attempts to get some of the funds.
With other words: In my opinion it was a bad investment, even without the security issues. Most likely it would have turned out as a risk for the Ethereum-price which of course would have impact on the DAO-price again.
I really doubt that professionals with the focus on profit would have bought into it. It's much more likely that it was funded by people close to the team and in the team - and it was a hype etc. And now there was a bail-out and everybody should have the question if there also would have been a bail out of a smart contract if it wouldn't have been about $150 Mio but about $15 Mio and without Investors close to the team. Somebody said that the Bail-out is/was similar to a scenario of a HF in Bitcoin because Factom or Counterparty would be in trouble.
No kidding: Just the existence of TheDAO with such a funding is a miracle for me. Since theDAO I have doubts about the Ethereum team and how professional they are. I really would like to know the intentions behind, because I don't understand it. All scenarios I believe to be realistic are red flags.
My theory is: The price itself is a risk for Ethereum or the interests of those who hold a lot of it, and that there is fear because of the risk it could come down. Because I'm sure that there is a lot of manipulation going on to back the price, but not just to make short-term-profit. Maybe more to get on a high level over the time. I can't prove that and of course, I could be wrong. But if I'm right, those who do that must have very close connections to those who really know what's going on because they do what's going on (Developers) - or it's the team itself.
All other scenarios would be a huge risk for those who play with a lot of money in this market. And another thing is interesting: There are hard times for Ethereum but Coinbase adds it with a very good timing. Does it solve any real problems. No. But could it help the price. Sure.
If it's about Ethereum and it's situation with focus on the market-situation, my advise is to focus on TheDAO. Because if something is rushed out in a way like that, it's either just totally unprofessional, which would tell us a lot about the team which is basically from the Ethereum-team, or there was pressure. And with pressure I mean some kind of intense intention. And in most of all cases the simplest scenario is true: Money was needed. Or a way out was needed. Because theDAO also would have made possible to get ETH into it, and to sell DAO-tokens for BTC --> That's like selling ETH without selling it directly. And right after launch it was below the ETH-price pretty fast. So the question is why. I can't answer it, but why should normal Investors sell it below it's price when there is nothing wrong? It was two weeks before that "Hack" happened.
***********
Maybe all this is too much of a conspiracy theory, but if we think about guys from a "banking oligopoly" it would be even more some kind of conspiracy theory. Because professionals wouldn't bet. They would try to control it. And they couldn't control their investments without at least close connections and insider-infos. Under the line I don't believe that.
There is most likely an "Ethereum-oligopoly". Very rich Ethereum-Investors with close connections to the team or it's the team or both. But the problem in all scenarios is that the market becomes a high risk, not just because of the DAO-disaster. Take a look at the chart and think about which professional would back the price after a double top. Even if all would be good, the market would be a high risk and even more because the possibility of a sharp rise of Bitcoin is a risk for all Alts, Ethereum included.
And is it possible that this all is totally wrong? Theoretical yes. It could be something like a "natural market", without a rich group manipulating it. But does the daily volume fit to the about 5k daily active users on Poloniex? I doubt that. And would there have been a DAO-bailout for normal Investors and would a natural funding brought about $150 Mio? Even more doubts about that.
