I mean if you do enough mental gymnastics, bagholders will continue to believe you. Right? RIGHT?
I didn't know the bear market started and ended by the way. Yes, we are down from 128K to 90K but still, this is nothing vs. what has been experienced historically.
I believe that one of the reasons why there is not much depth is the insane level of manipulation.
Anyways - they will get more and more creative as the number will not go up as much.
lol.. talk about cherry picking.. they cite specific years, lump other years together, and leave entire years out.
"If you make this bear market's length and dip the specific minimum limits required to call it a bear market then this is the smallest bear market ever!"
The right measurement is the length of the bear market measured from the base multipled by the girth
Also, it's important to re-synchronize the titration refinerators; otherwise, the protocol P|n prevents 'moderation' by enforcing that Δ X = 0 through an adjustment Δ Y, and it observes the 'no-moderation' response Δ M.
While it's a rookie mistake, it's easy to make if you're not careful.
Down 30% whilst everything else is up!
Now imagine what happens when the market actually pulls back. Quite impressed with how flat it's trading tbh. I just don't think anyone cares
I think that it is wash traded like hell mixed with lack of interest.
You'd think they'd be able to pump it higher on low liquidity if no one was trading but they can't even hold 91k. Maybe just wash trading to stop it collapsing at this point
Just reviewing past numbers: As of today’s date, it’s up about 6% per year since November 2021. But compared to Gold, or Silver, hardly up anything.
SPY is up 82% in five years. Ex-US stocks 32%. Gold 159%. Silver 231%. Hell even treasuries were 5% for a lot of that time.
Literally not even "good" and with huge swings still a large chance you would lose money. If you look at the mag 7 stocks it's even worse
Someone forgot to notify the S&P500 we were in a bear market I guess.
I love how the person realizes that the worst is still ahead 🤣
While saying that this is the weakest Bitcoin bear market ever. How do we define worse?
Yet.
Like the "dIgiTaL gOlD" stuff, this is an admission that Bitcoin's ability to be a lottery ticket for anyone who hodls long enough is long gone.
As in all zero-sum games (negative-sum including electricity costs), the only way for somebody to make a dollar is for somebody else to lose a dollar. To boast that Bitcoin losses are falling is to boast that Bitcoin gains are shrinking.
It's also scant consolation that Bitcoin used to fall 93% if 25% is enough to get you margin called, or wipe out your spread bet, or force you to sell to pay the bills, or otherwise extract your real money.
So far!
how did people invest before rainbow charts?
1 BTC = 1 BTC. it’s only a bear market if you convert it back into actual money.
They're all in it for the dirty fiat, as much as they pretend otherwise. Why else would there be 5 posts a day about the price in USD.
It's easy to hit a 93% decline when you started from basically zero
What’s worse. 93% loss of $31 or 32 percent loss of $125.
This statement by itself as a positive twist is in itself a massive red flag.
93% loss is worse for any investor
Would you rather lose 100% of $10 or 0.1% of $100,000,000
This a really stupid way of looking at it. Im not a crypto guy but this just doesnt make sense from an investor point of view. Prime example. I got 100 bucks.
Example 1. I buy 100 bucks of stock valued at .01. I get 10000 stocks. Stock value rises to .03. I have 300 bucks now. 300 % increase
Example 2. I buy 1 share valued at 100 bucks. Stock rises to 200 bucks. 200 % increase.
Would you rather have .01 rise to .03 or 100 to 200?
Why are you bringing up rises when we're talking about drops?
You sound convinced that "dca" is a great attitude to have. Other people aren't investing like that, and see losses differently.
Yes, I'd rather lose 70 cents than $125.
Im not typing it all out in opposite format but the same concept applies to drops. Your saying that 100 to 200 is better in my example, when it clearly isnt. Do the math yourself.
I did, and I disagree with you. Won't be the first time I'm wrong; won't be the first time I'm right.
If this was a conventional investment you would be right that the $ gains and losses should be compared like with like. However this is Bitcoin. There was much less money going into it in 2011 when it dropped 93%.
In 2011 people only lost play money and other people's electricity in Bitcoin. In 2025 people lose life savings and mortgages. Urbanmark's question sounds counterintuitive but it is completely relevant, because it reflects how the stakes have changed.
The crypto bro's "bitcoin used to dump 90% but now it only dumps 25%, so it's safer" is the stupid comparison.
Please, type more words that show you still dont understand math. Im on team "BTC will go to zero in our lifetime", but it doesnt change the way investing works.
Feel free to point out exactly which part of my post was incorrect. We're talking about Bitcoin, not investing.
If you buy £1000 of an asset, and it goes down 50%, then your investment is now worth £500. Doesn't matter if the unit price went from 10p to 5p, or if it went from £10 billion to £5 billion, it's still a 50% loss.
This is also why asset prices are often plotted on a log scale.
If I invest $1m, then I don't freaking care if the unit price is a nickel or a million.
What I care is the percentage on my investment.
If I only want to put in $100, it's not a serious investment.
But I am probably more willing to lose 100% of that than 0.1% of my $1m investment.
Because if I put $100 into something, it's not investment - it's a joke.
That's not how investments work
True. But we're talking about Bitcoin, not investments.
In the latter you are rich enough not to even notice the loss but if your on the edge that 10 could break you now you don't have gas money and can't get to work to earn money.or you don't have food today.