/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>55769453
That says it all. There are anons with the frame of mind to prepare and post curated price lists, routinely updated, in practically every LINK thread. Comically abnormal behaviour only explained by ulterior motive or mental problems. In my view, in rough order of likelihood:

a) regretful, burned holders;
b) burned ex-holders, subcategory of which would be those who lost their stacks on Celsius;
c) salty baggies of projects that biz moved on from in 2018 and never recovered (a la UOF with NEO);
d) August 2020 top-buyers;
e) cycle-top-buyers; and
f) whatever dispersed rabble of variously incentivised shorters or late/wannabe buyers there might be.

All of this catalysed by the overrepresentation among the above of the personality of the average bizlet.

Some of the above isn't a good thing for LINK though: a+b+d+e = sell pressure; LINK itself is seemingly creating the new gen category c; and having a legion of salty zombies creating a fud haze in every domain LINK is ever mentioned means anything short of >>55769321 won't work, i.e. retail pump seems totally off the table.

>>55677310
Perfect response. This is standard market physics. Bears don't get a higher entitlement to euphoria and greed. The scales will tip eventually, even if this move is doomed to fail given BTC's doddering about under 30k.