Majormax: You seem to be assuming that we are in an early 2014 type price dynamics scenario rather than in a early 2013 type scenario... accordingly, you seem to be assuming the beginning of a bear market and we are less than two months into a correction (max retracement currently at 61% from $19,666 to $7625).
There are a lot of folks who are grappling with a prediction in that regard, yet not too many folks are going to assume the beginning of a bear market based on both sparce evidence and less than two month passage of time from our most recent ATH. It seems that you are taking the less likely scenario and assuming it to be the absolute correct one - especially when you are labelling our current status as a "bear market".
In other words, I don't think that it is fair to automatically assume either one scenario over another or even to assume the seemingly less likely scenario of a supposed bear market without a certain degree of evidence to support your seemingly presumptive, at best, labelling.
Agree. Difficult to call which one is correct without further price action.
The lost dominance (over alts) of BTC this time around also clouds the picture, but we have to make some educated guesses, and watch for confirmation.
I understand that I am quibbling here and there with your representations, yet I would like to assert that your framing "BTC's lost dominance over alts" as if it were a negative picture about BTC.. maybe you are not saying that, but your word choice causes those kinds of inferences for me.
Do you recall throughout most of 2017, and perhaps even starting in 2016, there were a shitload of claims attempting to describe negative inferences towards bitcoin regarding the domination index, yet the fact of the matter remains that bitcoin went up a good 20x during these many claims about bitcoin supposedly experiencing meaningful competition. Sure there are dynamics there that show that a lot of money has been pouring into the crypto space, yet I think that frequently there are erroneous claims being made about bitcoin's supposed weakness relative to the price movement of several other coin market cap coins - which frequently are just a bunch a distracting and misleading information - and if Ripple does not demonstrate that fact as an extreme, then there are a lot of misleading aspects regarding dominance and BTC's relative dominance.
Even though money moving around into various coins can have both its good and its bad aspects, I think that there are various bullish scenarios in which the total amount of money in the space shows some additional ability of bitcoin's market cap and price to go up - even while sometimes the implosions and explosions of alts can have short term price impacts on bitcoin, too.
Majormax: I am not arguing that you are oblivious about these confusing, contradictory and even "clouding" as you proclaimed, dynamics, yet I am still quibbling a bit with both your word choice and the fact that you wanted to reiterate it as a possible influential BTC price dynamics factor.
