"old news will be priced in at X time" is ridiculous, on its face.
That's what I am arguing against and, from my perspective is what you are arguing FOR but just saying X=Right now
You're basically saying that news
is never priced in. Where does that get us? I'm saying that the market --
quite obviously -- reacts to news. The fact that markets are dynamic and news ubiquitously available (i.e. traders don't live under a rock) suggests that it is constantly being priced in. This is by definition. What I'm saying is that recent news suggests increased exposure and thus increased future demand -- speculators are accounting for that.
You're saying that good news drives demand, and that we haven't seen that reflected in the market. That's fine. But speculators pricing in news ≠ demand.
When speculators expect a rise in exposure/adoption/new blood, they buy. That's exactly what "pricing in the news" is. That doesn't mean that new investors won't enter, and it doesn't mean that the trend won't reverse.
The premise here is one I don't buy and that's speculators alone determine price. I believe that speculators have 0 actual knowledge and just flail about and react more irrationally then they'd like you to believe. I know this isn't a popular opinion here and wont' bother arguing it

What determines price if not those who trade? The "price" you seem to allude to is not the "price" reflected on the market (by exchanges). Hence, our conversation.
Re #2, yeah, who knows what will happen tomorrow? Maybe following a momentum shift, there will be a slew of bad news that will propel the market downwards in tune with momentum. What does that have to do with anything? Are you telling me that in that case, we will have to wait weeks or months for the market to price in the news? Markets are dynamic -- they don't sit around waiting for people to twiddle their thumbs.
You're talking about this as if this is just a linear process: people read news, they learn about bitcoin, then they buy some. You take into account absolutely no market activity outside of that.
No, of course there are a lot more forces at play then JUST this linear process and I'm taking the idea of being
"priced in" in a much longer term view than I think you are. The ripples from any single news spread out and can have larger reactions than just the immediate future. It seems to me that the idea of "priced in" that you are trying to define is by definition whatever the price is right now and that just doesn't seem useful to discuss.
For example, prior to the reward halving when the price was still like 7ish there were people saying that the halving was already "priced in" and the minute the halving happened and the price didn't instantly double they said "told you so it was already priced in!" In my opinion, the slow price increase that followed the month or two after is a result of this halving and it just had a delayed effect.
We are in real uncharted territory with bitcoin and we really don't know what events will have what impacts. Even the most experienced trader (who can hardly handle real markets) has no prayer of accurately predicting pricing.
This is the disconnect. The very meaning of the words "priced in" indicates "at the present time". If something "will be priced in in the future" then it is, obviously,
not priced in currently. I think there is a clear difference between news -- upon which speculators react dynamically -- and future demand spurned by that news over time.