I read one of such articles on chain and I was left to think it over. There was much sense in it, something I am going to expanciate in this article. What if Strategy (formerly Microstrategy) decided to sell ALL its Bitcoin holdings? We are talking of over 641 BTC here that is worth more than $64 billion. The question here is not why would they want to sell but however, how will they sell it?.
In the cryptocurrency market, who sells matters. Has your few bucks ever shown in the candle trends? Of course not, the big holder has got you well covered. So we can say the cryptoverse is only to the favor of middle class investors; their selling brings no market pressure to the table. Beyond just how much Bitcoin can grow to in price, the most vital part will be how viscous the entire ecosystem is.
I just came to realize that any big firm that will want to sweep their Bitcoin holdings clean will be selling at a loss. So yes, many are holding on to this asset just at an uncertain price until when true stability is ascertained. Indeed I can say there is still a long way to go for the cryptoverse. Without settling the issue of volatility, it will be difficult to get some set of investor’s attention.
source
Talking of such, Warren Buffett and his Berkshire Hathaway team just poured in over $61 billion into US assets (Treasury bills). Consider what such funds can do to the cryptoverse. So why is WB not interested in buying BTC? Warren remains an investor who has high value for liquidity.
We have to admit this, if you can't sell when and how you want to sell, then such assets are not actually yours. In short, this was one of the gaps blockchain tech birthed crypto for.
The fact here is, liquidity is and will remain a good business. I took that as a footnote from that news; ‘WB focuses on safety and liquidity in an uncertain market’. No wonder he is not giving attention to what is currently happening in the cryptoverse.
I can assume Berkshire Hathaway will finally opt into this ecosystem but from that footnote, it means they are waiting just for the proper time to strike.
Low risk is far better than volatility when you have enough financing power. I can remember I wrote such an article centering on how 1% can be a big ROI depending on who is investing. In essence, we can say the cryptoverse is still bedding on a gamble and yes, gambling is not a mature business.
source
This shifts our attention to how necessary stablecoins can be in this business. How big is the Bitcoin market? We are talking of over 41% crypto market dominance yet it is still operating in volatility. On the Vice, stablecoins market is currently at around 7% market dominance, this is something that needs to grow way faster because a lot hangs in here.
Nevertheless, the assumed flaws to look in here is the fact that TOP stablecoins like Tether and USDC are centralized chains. We are talking of a vision Breach when it comes to what Bitcoin was whitepapered to deliver. The question remains, which do we value most at this crossed road; Bitcoin and its alts associates or stablecoins and its centralized parties?
Tight, isn't it and yes, user dependent. The future here is dependent on who will dominate this technology. We can't doubt that centralized systems have this hedge. You wouldn't think Blackrock is holding onto so much Bitcoin just to settle for high price swings.
No, the next building to lap this market will be stablecoins. This is why I like writing, you know I just got to understand more why the big players are pushing for RWA and most importantly pegged to stablecoins? It is a move to stable their accrued assets.
To conclude, let me add, this is not a move to doubt, the future of cryptocurrency is not tagged to price swings. This is more of a child’s play if I should say. The most serious season of crypto will emerge when liquidity becomes a thing. Yes, when investors are in no means worrier about losses in case they want to withdraw huge.
Posted Using INLEO