Many people like the main dealer theory, why do I sometimes not recommend it for Bitcoin itself. 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. 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 do this? It is rare to do so. But what if it is a little bit of buying orders to pull it up? 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 that position. If it is discovered by a large number of big investors to buy orders and increase the pending orders, this fund will be more.
The same reasoning applies to Bitcoin, the full network coverage of Bitcoin, the listing of centralized and decentralized transactions, and the trading depth of various exchanges, so how much does it take to pull it up from 60,000 to 64,000? Even if you can calculate the trading depth of pending orders at the time of the entire network, then the frequent transactions of Bitcoin may change a lot in the next second. So how much money do you need to spend to pull the main force?
You should know that no matter 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, and how much reserve funds are needed, and directly asks the boss to use money to pull the market, he will probably be scolded to death, so the advance amount must be calculated, and how much money is used to buy incrementally 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 the market maker or the main force will do this?
Many people will say that the main force has 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 a return of several times, otherwise why take the risk to do so.
I have said so much just to tell you that for Bitcoin, the pure main force 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 trend.
For example, Bitcoin has currently fallen to 60,000. I found a large number of buy orders below, and 60,000 is the liquidation position for many longs. 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 and directly break through a certain position in the short term, and then let retail investors follow suit and sell, and cancel the buy orders. Then, naturally, I will drive the price directly to 59,000 or even lower, and the long positions around 60,000 will be liquidated, and the purpose will be achieved.This is the pin-piercing behavior we often see. Why do many people find that there is a rebound with a short-term large-scale pin-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 personally. It is a sharing of experience with everyone, so in the future, when facing a large increase or decrease, 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.
