I originally replied to this in the comments section, but I think I'd like to expand on it.
Regarding the main dealer theory that many fans like, why do I sometimes not recommend it for Bitcoin itself?
This question has been mentioned before. Take a certain altcoin as an example. For example, from 1U-1.5U, if it is only listed on a single exchange, then the trading depth of the exchange in this range is 1 million. So on the surface, the main force only needs 1 million to make the price instantly go from 1 to 1.5, but will the main force pull it up like this? It rarely does. But what if it is to take orders and pull it up little by little? Basically, under the premise that the short-term variables are not large in this range, 2-3 times the funds are needed to pull it up to this position. If it is discovered by a large number of takers and orders are added, this fund will be more.
The same reasoning applies to Bitcoin. Bitcoin's full network coverage, the listing of centralized and decentralized transactions, and the trading depth of various exchanges, then how much is needed to pull it up from 60,000 to 64,000 million? Even if you can calculate the depth of pending orders at the time of the entire network, the frequent transactions of Bitcoin may change greatly in the next second. So how much money do you need to spend to pull the market?
You should know that whether it is a whale, a market maker or an institution, you must make advance payments when making moves. If the trader cannot judge how much money is needed to move from one price to another, how much backup funds are needed, and directly asks the boss to use money to pull the market, he will probably be scolded to death, so you must calculate the advance amount, and include how much money to buy in increments in case of emergencies during the period. If you can't do this, it means that the risk of trading will be very high, and once it fails, you will be arbitrage and suffer short-term losses. Do you think market makers or main players will do this?
Many people will say that the main players have money, but even if they have money, the money is not hung by the wind, and in the eyes of capital, every penny spent must have a return, and it is several times the return, otherwise why take the risk to do so.
I have said so much, just to tell you that for Bitcoin, the pure main force's behavior of pulling and smashing the market does exist, but in a larger market or against the wind, the risk of doing so is also particularly high. For the main force of Bitcoin, the best way is to boost the market with the trend.
For example, Bitcoin has fallen to 60,000. I found a large number of buy orders below, and 60,000 is the position where many longs have cleared their positions. At this time, it may not fall further in the short term. If I want to harvest long positions, I will sell at key positions, directly break through a certain position in the short term, and then let retail investors follow suit and sell, so that the buy orders will be cancelled. Then, naturally, I will directly hit the price to 59,000 or even lower, and the long positions near 60,000 will be cleared, and the purpose will be achieved. This is the needle-piercing behavior we often see, and why many people find that there is a rebound with a short-term large-scale needle-piercing market.
Of course, the above is more of an analysis. If you think about it from another perspective, what should you do to maximize your profits is human nature. Don't take it for granted. It is a sharing of experience with everyone, so in the future, when facing a large rise or fall, don't push the main force to pull the market and smash the market. The control rate of Bitcoin is not so concentrated and unified.