188 Interactions, 2 today
Dogecoin, on the other hand, remained the hype-driven coin, as Elon Musk maintained his joke about the alt being the ‘world’s cryptocurrency.’ The Tesla CEO, on the other hand, broadened his horizons and targeted Bitcoin; first, he came out as an enthusiast. Musk’s excitement was mirrored in the price of Bitcoin: Tesla revealed it had purchased $1.5 billion in Bitcoin and indicated its intention to begin accepting Bitcoin as payment for automobiles. In March, the CEO tweeted, “You can now buy a Tesla with Bitcoin,” only to cease the service owing to worries over the use of fossil fuels in Bitcoin mining and transactions.
Musk’s emotional rollercoaster on Bitcoin influenced its price at every level. Whether it’s his support for Bitcoin or Tesla’s investment in Bitcoin, which will be followed by its sale in the near future. This has caused significant volatility in the Bitcoin market, which cannot be disputed.
Can we, however, accuse Musk of market manipulation? Not without proof.
Magda Wierzycka, CEO of Sygnia, lambasted Tesla CEO Elon Musk in an interview, saying:
“What we have seen with Bitcoin is price manipulation by one very powerful and influential individual.”
Musk called this inaccurate and added:
“Tesla only sold ~10% of holdings to confirm BTC could be liquidated easily without moving market.”
He went on to say that the business would start permitting BTC transactions after it was confirmed that miners were utilising about 50% renewable energy and had a “positive future turned.”
The current moment of consolidation in Bitcoin can be related to reports about China cracking down on cryptocurrency as well as Elon Musk’s Tweets.
This, however, raises the issue of Bitcoin being a non-correlated asset. Recent events have offered proof to the opposite. Many people have claimed that industry choices and individual tweets have affected the bitcoin market.
Thomas Lee of Fundstrat opined that the impact of ‘institutional investors’ is still very small and the changes caused by a company or a person meant the market needed to evolve further.
– put another way, really highlights that the impact of ‘institutional investors’ is still very small https://t.co/xVwTKlBZn0
— Thomas Lee (@fundstrat) June 13, 2021