Less Regulations Coming!

[zasad@]

@zasad@. I am not talking about liquidity issues, I am talking about total liquidity on each of these coins. If there is not enough liquidity to support the market capitalization then how can you say that the size of the market is based only on market capitalization?

On the argument on bitcoin ETF market, this adds more liquidity on bitcoin which expands the market and supports this. On smaller cryptocoins there is not.

I will quote the classic definition again:
"Crypto market growth is usually defined as a period of increase in the overall market capitalization of all cryptocurrencies or a significant increase in the prices of individual cryptocurrencies."
I'm trying to explain to you that market capitalization is the primary growth indicator, but the only one.

Next, we evaluate other metrics and indicators:
trading volume and liquidity, the number of new addresses, regulatory efficiency, and other technological and economic factors.

Overall liquidity and volumes are made up of a combination of these indicators across all exchanges, but I've already shown you an example of how exchanges deceive their traders and that any trading volume on most coins is made by market maker bots.

___
Latest news
https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2025/10/17/bitcoin-etfs-see-usd536-million-in-outflows-as-market-consolidates-below-usd110k
Bitcoin ETFs See $536 Million in Outflows as BTC Wilts Below $110K

Bitcoin's market capitalization is over $2 trillion. Roughly speaking, Bitcoin ETF outflow was $0.5 billion, while Bitcoin's market capitalization fell by $0.1 trillion.
Try comparing these numbers. I'm not arguing with you, I'm trying to drive home the point that even the Bitcoin market looks very unstable.
And how much will Bitcoin be worth if Bitcoin ETF outflow is $5 billion?

[bbc.reporter]

@zasad@. What is the source of this classic definition of yours? The memecoin traders has learned that billions in market capitalization does not matter if the market for the memecoin does not have enough liquidity behind it for them to sell their tokens.

This is certainly why memecoins have very big red candles when the holders dump. There is not much liquidity and this also causes other holders to be afraid and also dump their tokens hehehehe. They have discovered that the market for their memecoin is small even if it has billions in capitalization hehehe.

[zasad@]

@zasad@. What is the source of this classic definition of yours? The memecoin traders has learned that billions in market capitalization does not matter if the market for the memecoin does not have enough liquidity behind it for them to sell their tokens.

This is certainly why memecoins have very big red candles when the holders dump. There is not much liquidity and this also causes other holders to be afraid and also dump their tokens hehehehe. They have discovered that the market for their memecoin is small even if it has billions in capitalization hehehe.

Classic definitions are usually taken from dictionaries such as the "Dictionary of Economics" (Your Captain Obvious).

The memecoin market is 99% a scam, where the number of wallets, liquidity, and capitalization are created to lure more hamsters into this trap and then take the profit and create a new memecoin.
I don't understand what you're trying to tell me? That the classic definition isn't applicable to scammy memecoin markets?

[bbc.reporter]

@zasad@. Yes, however, asking the source. Share the link and the quotation of the definition of your dictionary. If this is a book, share the screenshot.

Scam or not, this is not the argument. The argument is the size of the market and how the basis of the real size of the market is not the market capitalization. Our argument was caused when we argued on bitcoin and the ETF market. You argued that this does not help grow the size of bitcoin's market and you say that the only measurement of the size of the market is only the market capitalization. You are wrong.

[zasad@]

@zasad@. Yes, however, asking the source. Share the link and the quotation of the definition of your dictionary. If this is a book, share the screenshot.

Scam or not, this is not the argument. The argument is the size of the market and how the basis of the real size of the market is not the market capitalization. Our argument was caused when we argued on bitcoin and the ETF market. You argued that this does not help grow the size of bitcoin's market and you say that the only measurement of the size of the market is only the market capitalization. You are wrong.

https://www.mc2.fi/blog/crypto-market-caps-explained
I support this opinion.

Does a higher market cap mean better price stability?
Generally, crypto with higher market caps tend to be more stable as these coins have a larger market presence and more liquidity; thus, they are less affected by sudden price changes.

Large-cap coins, like Bitcoin or Ethereum, often experience smaller price swings because they have many buyers and sellers, reducing the risk of manipulation.

On the other hand, smaller market cap coins are more volatile and can see big price changes with smaller trading volumes, making them riskier but with the potential for higher short-term gains.

I disagree with you about ETFs because Bitcoin is an ETF.
The first Bitcoin ETF was launched on October 19, 2021, in Canada, when Bitcoin's price was at a high of over $60,000.
https://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt2112t.htm

Please explain to me, if the ETF contributes to the growth of the Bitcoin market, then why after that the price of Bitcoin fell for 15 months and fell to $16,000?

coingecko.com(C)

[bbc.reporter]

@zasad@. It appears that you still do not understand. You use the price and the capitalization which is based on price of bitcoin as the source of the size of the market. It is the additional sources of inflows and liquidity that makes the size of the bitcoin market bigger which the ETF market from traditional finance brings to bitcoin.

I reckon what does not help on the growth of the bitcoin market are the perpetual futures markets. These derivatives cause traders to put their money on them instead of buying the real cryptocoins.

[zasad@]

@zasad@. It appears that you still do not understand. You use the price and the capitalization which is based on price of bitcoin as the source of the size of the market. It is the additional sources of inflows and liquidity that makes the size of the bitcoin market bigger which the ETF market from traditional finance brings to bitcoin.

I reckon what does not help on the growth of the bitcoin market are the perpetual futures markets. These derivatives cause traders to put their money on them instead of buying the real cryptocoins.

I understand your logic and agree with it, but why does the price chart contradict it? I provided proof above, so why are you ignoring it?

Now I see that Trump's statements are having a greater impact on crypto markets than anything else, and I see confirmation of my theory on the chart.

Can you show me your theory on a chart?

[bbc.reporter]

@zasad@. I am not ignoring it, I am saying that basing the total size of a market from a price of an asset is wrong because the high price without the support of much liquidity behind it does not mean that the market is large.

What makes a market big or small is the size of the market's liquidity and the gateways for flows into and out of the market. The ETF is one gateway for liquidity flows into bitcoin.

[zasad@]

@zasad@. I am not ignoring it, I am saying that basing the total size of a market from a price of an asset is wrong because the high price without the support of much liquidity behind it does not mean that the market is large.

What makes a market big or small is the size of the market's liquidity and the gateways for flows into and out of the market. The ETF is one gateway for liquidity flows into bitcoin.

Unfortunately, market makers provide most of the liquidity on exchanges, and the problem is that the market size is determined by the market makers' wishes. And when the market is in trouble, market makers quickly withdraw liquidity, resulting in an event similar to what happened on October 10-11, 2025. Traders lose tens of billions of dollars.

[bbc.reporter]

@zasad@. Yes and this is much easier to do on smaller markets of altcoins where they are listed only on 1 or 2 exchanges. On bitcoin this can also happen, however, because the market of bitcoin is much bigger already, there will be other market makers and other liquidity sources that will make this problem less concerning. The price of bitcoin might dump, however, the netflows and liquidity behind will determine the size of the market.

[zasad@]

@zasad@. Yes and this is much easier to do on smaller markets of altcoins where they are listed only on 1 or 2 exchanges. On bitcoin this can also happen, however, because the market of bitcoin is much bigger already, there will be other market makers and other liquidity sources that will make this problem less concerning. The price of bitcoin might dump, however, the netflows and liquidity behind will determine the size of the market.

I agree with you on this one. I don't even want to discuss smaller altcoin markets, because trading there is more like price manipulation and hamster trickery.

[bbc.reporter]

There were speculations that if a Democrat will win the presidency on the next elections, the procrypto regulations might be reversed and we will go back to the Gensler occurrences where everything is a security. However, there is good news. The present SEC chair Paul Atkins will create regulations that will make it difficult for the next administration to change what was already changed from the kingdom of Gensler heheheh.



Paul Atkins, the chair of the US Securities and Exchange Commission, has embarked on a campaign to overhaul the agency’s crypto regulations.

And he doesn’t want a future administration to promptly undo his hard work.

“What is really important to me is that we future-proof what we’re doing,” Atkins said, “so that whatever happens down the road, we don’t have the pendulum swinging the other way, and then having a lot of our efforts washed away.”

He did not say what steps the agency would take in its attempt to lock in forthcoming changes.

Read in full https://www.dlnews.com/articles/regulation/sec-chair-looks-to-future-proof-crypto-regulation-overhaul/

[zasad@]

I've already written my opinion on this issue, as it's important to analyze not only what regulators say but also what they do.
We'll see stricter regulation next, which will likely be even more complex than in the banking sector or similar.
There will be opportunities, but all of this will be governed by know-your-customer policies and so on.

[bbc.reporter]

@zasad@. I disagree that it will be more stricter for the companies in the cryptospace because Brian Armstrong and the other executives are presently connected to the administration of the Donald. They will lobby and influence these politicians to create regulations and rules that will be advantageous for them.

This does not imply that this will also be advantageous for us, however. I reckon that the strictness towards us it will be similar from the administrations before the Donald.

[zasad@]

@zasad@. I disagree that it will be more stricter for the companies in the cryptospace because Brian Armstrong and the other executives are presently connected to the administration of the Donald. They will lobby and influence these politicians to create regulations and rules that will be advantageous for the,.

This does not imply that this will also be advantageous for us, however. I reckon that the strictness towards us it will be similar from the administrations before the Donald.

The government regulator's regulations are already clear to everyone. They want to know who owns each wallet and to whom you transfer your coins. And accordingly, all crypto users must pay all taxes.

The problem is that most users will be working not with cryptocurrency, but with numbers on PC screens, phones, and so on.

[bbc.reporter]

@zasad@. Agreed. Much of these users will only be in the cryptospace and treat this similar to a stock in the stock market and they will dump them after they have pumped profusely. This is certainly why this bull market did not pump as much as the bull markets of before because the types of people that were here before have not returned here after they lost all of their money on the markets before heheheheh.

[zasad@]

@zasad@. Agreed. Much of these users will only be in the cryptospace and treat this similar to a stock in the stock market and they will dump them after they have pumped profusely. This is certainly why this bull market did not pump as much as the bull markets of before because the types of people that were here before have not returned here after they lost all of their money on the markets before heheheheh.

If we look at the Bitcoin market, over the past three years, the price of Bitcoin has grown from $17,000 to $125,000, which is more than 7X.
I understand that many investors want to repeat the success of 2017 and want to see a 30-100X increase

This is still a very young market with a small capitalization and is only just developing. There are many potential investors worldwide.

[bbc.reporter]

News update.

It appears that the much needed regulations to bring more clarity in the cryptospace in America does not have a clear roadmap on when this will be implemented heheh. I am not quite certain on the market's reaction on this news update, however, we cannot be shocked if the reaction is bearish.



The U.S. Senate Banking Committee will not have any markup hearings on market structure legislation defining how federal regulators can oversee the industry until next year, punting on a hoped-for hearing that many sought to hold near the end of this week.

While the delay was expected, it's still a blow to the crypto industry, which at least wanted to see a markup hearing, in the absence of more substantial progress toward a sweeping new law that was hoped for in 2025. It's unclear how quickly lawmakers might be able to resume negotiations in the new year.

Read in full https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2025/12/15/senate-punts-crypto-market-structure-bill-to-next-year

[zasad@]

I think the Clarity Act will be passed next year.
I see political differences in the US as one of the reasons why the bill's passage has been delayed.
The US needs a law that would distribute powers between the SEC and the CFTC, otherwise companies won't be able to operate in the US market.

[hugeblack]

I think the Clarity Act will be passed next year.
I see political differences in the US as one of the reasons why the bill's passage has been delayed.
The US needs a law that would distribute powers between the SEC and the CFTC, otherwise companies won't be able to operate in the US market.

Don't forget that the government shutdown has significantly impacted legislative deadlines, and it's likely to return in February, followed by the midterm elections. Therefore, I don't think such legislation will be a priority.

So, overall, I don't think it's bad news, and regulatory news typically has a negative impact on prices in the medium term.