Yes, yes, rally short-squeeze (#1040602)
...except Armstrong didn't get the memo, and still thinks it's a Trump coin:
The rally, by all accounts, has a lot to do with various bits of crypto-friendly legislation that are expected to become US law soon.
The most important piece for bitcoin specifically is the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, which will specify when a crypto asset is a commodity in the eyes of the law and when it is a security, and (correspondingly) when it is regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and when by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
OK, fine, we got some of that recently (#1042115)
And then we get the most curious type of counterargument: if it's all legislation-driven, once they run out of legislative ink, what is going to make bitcoin rise then?!
More transparent regulation clears the way for great institutional demand for bitcoin. So, given finite supply, the bitcoin price should rise. A tidy explanation, but what happens when the last regulatory roadblock has been removed? What makes bitcoin rise then?
Maybe your premise is wrong, sir; but even if not, who cares? It already has, and will continue to, outperformed your tradfi shitcoin stuff.
That's OK, we don't care that you are "a bit sceptical" -- we want people like you to get bitcoin absolutely last!
Also, nice volatility chart
Then we get an even stranger counterargument:
I can't see the logic here. Yes, aaaand?
This newsletter has been sceptical of crypto as its price has risen, so humbleness is in order. But the store-of-value argument for Bitcoin’s value doesn’t quite add up, and the recent rally doesn’t help.
Translation: We have been consistently wrong about this before, and since we can't see our error, we are going to keep being wrong
archived:
https://archive.md/Gllml