Okay, here’s wtf this is. But there’s nuance and it’s unsure what the right answer was. It depends who you believe about $btc price action; what happened, or . Thread:
Conversation
said he watched that capitulation in real time, and felt someone was “forcing long liquidations.” It seems he was saying the move was artificial. So if you said “long,” too were historically right... but if Alameda is right, you may have been “technically” wrong.
1
1
So now we’ve overcompensated, and reverted to the mean. But if the Nov. 2018 capitulation *was* manipulated... then the question is: what would the market have done organically at 6.4? It seems Alameda thought we’d hold or continue up. And I take his input on the market over mine
2
4
Replying to
Really enjoyed this series!
FWIW I think that I'd probably use 'artificial' or 'liquidation driven' rather than 'manipulated' for the drop to ~$4k. 'Manipulated' sort of implies it was intentional, whereas I think it's totally possible it was *accidental* liquidations.
2
4
Hey Sam, thx a lot for the clarification, nuance, & insight. It was fallacious of me to connect “liquidation driven” with “manipulated.” Is it possible for you to disclose your net position at that time? Also, how you assessed the “low inflows” post 10k? Understood if you can’t!
2
2
Replying to
Low inflows: we saw very few signs of huge sustained buyers. Unlike 2017 where Japan, Korea, etc. showed $100m of net buyers every day. Once buy-side liquidations ended, not much sustaining the pop in price.
Very cool. Thanks for chiming in. Always appreciate it greatly.
1