[ub99]

It’s astonishing how a single individual can affect (manipulate) the value of an entire monetary ecosystem via a series of Tweets. What’s the advantage of Bitcoin being - allegedly - so independent from governments and other centralized powers then?

[polishdude20]

Yeah, the more news like this that comes out, the more I realize it's not much more than a popularity contest.

[ketamine__]

You could easily say this about the stock market. Imagine if Buffett came out and said in advance he was going to sell all his Coke stock.

[ub99]

I actually agree with this analogy. However, Bitcoin is not stock - unless now, after first calling a currency, then a store of value, we magically transition to calling Bitcoin a stock-like asset.

[RocketOne]

Except that he wouldn't because he knows that would manipulate the market and he's more responsible than that.

[SigmundA]

Its not just that he's more responsible, its illegal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_manipulation

[bob33212]

But people would continue to buy Coke. And Coke would continue to make a profit and Buffet would look stupid when the company did well, even if he was able to cause a 10% dip in the stock. It is unlikely that the world would stop drinking code because Buffet said he didn't like the stock.

Bitcoin on the other hand, has no profits and only can be successful by having everyone agree it is better to own than gold. So if Musk's opinion is followed by many other people it will bring bitcoin down for a long time.

[natmaka]

In the "crypto" world nobody really knows what affects the value (correlation does not imply causation). If someone claims to know, let's just check his predictions' accuracy.

For a centralized power confiscation and devaluation are more difficult to apply in the "crypto" world.

Value stems from opinions, and in the "crypto" world everyone is free to form his own opinion and act accordingly. Doing so is more difficult under some governments/centralized powers.

Many celebrities publish various claims about "cryptos", and even a major disagreement isn't innocuous. Major disagreement between central powers about important matters, for example money, may lead to war.

[moralestapia]

>correlation does not imply causation

It does not exclude it either. That is such a vacuous statement and I'm tired of it being used every simgle time someone has a chance to drop the most cliche "smart guy" phrase in modern parlance.

But back to the topic ...

Do you seriously believe that the recent up/downs of BTC have nothing to with Elon and Tesla's actions, i.e. it was just a coincidence?

[natmaka]

> It does not exclude it either

Indeed. I wrote "nobody really knows what affects the value". You wrote "a single individual can affect (manipulate) the value", and my answer was just a reminder: nobody knows for sure.

> Do you seriously believe that the recent up/downs of BTC have nothing to with Elon and Tesla's actions

I never wrote this. Speaking about vacuous things: I'm tired of the straw man trick

In my opinion Musk Tweets probably had an effect, but I doubt anyone can show to which extent, especially indirectly (people acting upon their thought about the reaction of other people to Musk's Tweets...).