The cryptocurrency market essentially only has two types of targets: one is investment targets, and the other is gambling targets.
According to the strictest definition of the BTC hoarding party, BTC is an investment target, while others are gambling targets; wealthy thinking tends to make investments, while poor thinking is inclined to gamble.
If financial trading is a sword, then BTC is the king of swords. With BTC and a host of cryptocurrencies, one can quickly ascend to a higher class or just as quickly descend to a lower one.
We all know that the financial market is always 70% loss, 20% break-even, and 10% profit, but we actually do not believe it, or rather, we all think we won't be one of the 70%. However, when you open your account and look, the numbers on the account won't lie; whether you admit it or not, you are either among the 70%, the 20%, or the 10%. The moment you open it is already clear.
We think about 1, but have we ever reflected that what we do are actions of 7? I have mentioned before that the fastest way for a person to progress is to copy; this applies not only to individuals but also to the giants.
Some people have the lowest thoughts when they see copying, mocking Xiaomi cars for copying Porsche, but the Porsche owner said that Xiaomi and we just have some similar aesthetics for cars. No matter how much LOW people ridicule, it does not prevent 'Penguin' from becoming the village overlord, and the copied works cannot be contained.
Why can't investing be about copying? Why must one buy what they like instead of what the majority likes? This isn't about choosing a wife.
What are MicroStrategy buying? What is BlackRock buying? What is Microsoft discussing to buy? What are Americans collectively gambling on?
You see, with such a target as BTC, it is well-known, so what conspiracy could there be in the US regarding BTC? This game is clearly a public scheme.
But 90% of people just won’t buy; they want to go against big capital, they are unwilling to copy homework, and want to create their own original altcoins.
A reader once left a message saying that I always write BTC has no traffic and should write more about altcoins. This is indeed true; writing about altcoins targets 90% of the market, while writing about BTC targets 10% of the market.
But I still choose to stick to my original intention, insisting on only writing about BTC, because I believe people are drawn to their groups, and I want to filter the 10% of people who resonate with the community's ideology through the philosophy advocated in my articles.
I hope my readers can earn real money and achieve results after being inspired by the article, or years later remember that a blogger once said everything right, but unfortunately did not understand or execute it at the time, missing the opportunity for financial freedom, rather than being scolded for losing badly in contracts and altcoins.
Wealthy thinking emphasizes the long term, while poor thinking often focuses on the short term. So you see, the same thing, one side is the honey of the rich, while the other side is the arsenic of the poor.
Getting rich quickly in a short time is a traffic secret, but for investors, it is unrealistic. Buffett averages 20% annually; if you want 200%, can it be sustained? It's not sustainable, and knowledge learned in that regard is just a waste of time.
Returning to investment logic, if you are a capital operator holding $10 billion, would you buy a BTC that looks set to drop according to candlesticks, or an altcoin that looks set to rise?
Faced with such candlestick patterns, big capital does not rely on feelings and does not care about the current coin price; it only assesses the coin price one to three years later.
It will definitely be buying BTC rather than altcoins (regardless of fund size; smaller funds should cherish their hard-earned money and consider the risks more), because BTC does not have so-called market manipulators, but altcoins may have multiple manipulators. As long as you dare to invest, they dare to sell you their almost zero-cost assets infinitely, and there is no long-term value in altcoins.
I can also understand that some brothers have borrowed funds, coming from credit cards, and must be paid back in a month, so they have no time to wait. Money that should not have come in has come in; they can only gamble and rely on luck.
Big capital comes to invest, so they only choose investment targets; therefore, we often see large inflows into BTC. Let's take a look at the recent situation.
According to SpotOnChain statistics, in the first week of this month (December 2 to 6, 2024), the US spot cryptocurrency ETF saw inflows of $2.744 billion into BTC and $844.9 million into ETH.
These inflows mark the second-largest weekly inflow since the launch of the Bitcoin ETF and the largest weekly inflow since the launch of the Ethereum ETF.
Both BTC and Ethereum ETFs have experienced a whole week of inflows.
BlackRock's IBIT and ETHA increased their holdings by 26,833 BTC ($2.65 billion) and 150,900 ETH ($581 million) this week, currently holding approximately 523,687 BTC ($52.38 billion) and 846,123 ETH ($3.38 billion).
Ethereum has recently seen accelerated capital inflows.
The president of The ETF Store, Nate Geraci, posted on X, stating: 'The US spot Ethereum ETF has seen continuous inflows for 10 days, totaling $1.4 billion, including the best two days since its launch in July.'
In my opinion, only advisors and institutional investors are just starting to pay attention to this field.
Why do big capital focus on BTC and ETH?
Because targets like BTC and ETH have a certain and sustainable future.
Anthony Scaramucci, founder of SkyBridge Capital, emphasized in an interview that Bitcoin needs to be held for a long time, four years, even though it has recently fallen from about $103,900.
He pointed out that the historical maximum drawdown of Bitcoin is 82%, but on average it can bring positive returns over four years. He also stated that Bitcoin is moving towards mainstream institutional investment, predicting that if its market value approaches that of gold, the price could increase tenfold.
You think Bitcoin is too expensive at $100,000, but that's wrong; Bitcoin's goal in the last ten years is to break through $1 million, reach $20 trillion, become the world's largest asset, replace gold, and become electronic gold.
In the financial market, it has always been that the cheap will become cheaper, and the expensive will become more expensive.