pull down to refresh
You certainly aren't being dumb. If M3 money supply is ~$20 trillion, Saylor's biggest dumps only represent about ~0.01%. That is a very small amount.
But what I'm most interested in here is thinking about this idea that dumping a fork coin can crash its price.
Let's imagine that there was a proposed fork to bitcoin that created 2.1 trillion new bitcoins and doled them out to miners as increased block rewards.
All of a sudden, my little stack is even smaller in comparison. Would it be harder for me and my little stack to crash the price of this fork than some fork that just changed spending conditions but kept the 21 million cap?
My instinct was also to think that Saylor just is too small a fish to matter, but I think the real argument I'm making is that the act of selling itself doesn't necessarily lower the market price of a thing because for every sale there is a buy.
I think the disconnect is that you're thinking of the "market price" as being something that exists on its own. It doesn't exist, it's entirely a function of the trades that happen between buyers and sellers.
The reason people say "selling drops the price" is because when there is more sell pressure (lots of people wanting to unload an asset), it becomes harder to find takers. They need to improve their offer (i.e. lower the price they are willing to sell at) in order to find willing buyers. So the exchange rate of subsequent transactions drop. Then when you measure the average exchange rate of the latest transactions, you get your "lowered market price".
Isn’t it just because of the total amount of dollars being high, and USD being the default monetary asset that can soak up purchases. The value of the dollar doesn’t go down when companies buy large amounts of other assets like equipment or stocks? Am I being dumb?