>>29574710
I do not agree. You assume the change in flows do not compensate. At every stage you have speculators holding or selling, winning or losing.
> Educated techies/NEETs who made it from tech mining and sending BTC to each other.
> Person in country A wants to send a few hundred bucks to country B cheaply.
> Drug users told to use BTC on their darknet marketplaces of choice by sellers.
> Chinaman/Argentine/etc. etc. wants to get money out of countries banking system/currency.
> Corporations dipping their toe in as an alternative to cash and buy billions.
> Sovereign wealth, HNWI/family-offices allocating a considerable % of portfolio to bitcoin.
> Retail banking offering crypto wallets as part of their package, expanding adoption and acceptance as a reserve asset.
etc.
It does require sustained higher levels of capital to keep the price high, but that's just what will keep happening.
You've gone from basement dwellers and drug users using it as internet funny money, to the biggest entities in the world with the most cash looking at it seriously.
Do you think Saudi Arabia etc. sovereign wealth funds aren't looking at it?
Apple with their cash reserves bigger than most countries in the world? "Oh no they would never, AAPL is not a meme!" Bullshit. 1% of their cash would be ~2bn dollars. 99% USD and 1% BTC wouldn't take them close to whatever you think meme status is, it would be a decent decision.
Microstrategy is a meme because they are the first listed techie to do it publically, Tesla is a meme because Elon is fantastic at marketing. Anyone at all involved in anything big in capital markets can tell you there is SO MUCH FUCKING MONEY out there in so many different entities. Labeling those yet to arrive as 'institutions' like most anons here does it a disservice.
> muh new paridigm
It's not a new paradigm, it's the same one as last time, just with bigger players - but the biggest ones haven't even showed up yet.