Nice feel good article...
https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-was-designed-for-a-financial-crisis-so-far-its-working-wellThere are many who argue that Bitcoin cannot be a store-of-value based on its whipsaw volatility but valuable insight can be drawn from gold’s price action during the 2008 financial crisis.
Gold certainly doesn’t look like a safe haven after a 24% plunge in less than 2 months, even more worrisome is the fact that the S&P 500 remained flat during that period. Therefore, is it really fair to analyze any correlation over such a short period? Does that sharp movement in price invalidate gold’s resilience during market uncertainties?
The fact is that Bitcoin has zero correlation with other asset classes.
Said in laymen terms: Honey Badger doesn't give a fuck.
I won't comment again my
own theory about "mining capitulation" induced dump in bitcoin, only to be reinforced by general asset classes crash. So Bitcoin capitulation started for reasons all inside the bitcoin "ecosystem" only to be later reinforced by general market crash.
Bitcoin going down because other asset classes crash (Equity, Debt and Gold) going down could lead you to think that bitcoin is still used as a gambling tools by many.
Trading bitcoin has low correlation to other asset classes and high volatility, this is a wonderful instrument for scalping (beware: this doesn't mean in any way it is a profitable strategy to scalp on bitcoin).
So, despite the digital gold is the best narrative I can think of while dealing with bitcoin, this proved to still be a narrative, not supported by data and market evidences.
Actually, if you want to have a ray of light, you can think that bitcoin is not the one you observe on the exchanges.
As
beautifully pointed out by @Plutosky on the Italian board, bitcoins used for trading are only a minuscule part of the whole bitcoin used out there.
If bitcoin would have been a pure gambling tool, given the enormous swings during the last days we would have seen a great surge in bitcoin transactions and a subsequent rise in transaction fees. Ok, we observed a rise in both metrics, but nothing comparable to what would have happened if we had observed a "rush" to the exchanges to trade bitcoins. We observed a few weak hands running to convert into Fiat, a few buying) but the vast majority of hodlers kept on...hodling.
If we look at LN statistics we see that the allocated bitcoins in LN are almost unchanged. Sign that no one thought their precious coins were at risk committed to a LN channel.
https://i.imgur.com/dLGzujP.jpgNumber of allocated BTC coins actually slightly increased over the market dump: sign that the LN user didn't think their coins were at risk being committed to a channel instead of rushing to a fiat exchange.
So, don't infer anything about bitcoin only looking at the price: the price is one of the many aspects of bitcoin, but there is much more to deal with than price.
Hey, could you please share the source where that graph comes from? Thanks.
