i think i get how this works now.
on one day, someone buys up a lot of bitcoins causing the price to rally. there was no news whatsoever but it rose nearly 10% (with average purchase price well under $8.50)
the next day comes the pump article from a conde nast publication which talks about the huge rally, which sucks in a lot more buyers (well over $9)
there is a little volatility, as the pumper unloads some of the bitcoins that had been bought.
then the next day from the exact same conde nast organization comes the dump article, how bitcoin is the grease that helps arm a guerrilla army
and once the price starts to dip, commence the huge selloff bringing things back to about where they were before (with average selling price well over $8.50)
someone at conde nast knowing in advance that the armory article would be coming out would probably not publish the "omfg itz $9" article. but since it is two separate publications, there is plausible deniability.
on one day, someone buys up a lot of bitcoins causing the price to rally. there was no news whatsoever but it rose nearly 10% (with average purchase price well under $8.50)
the next day comes the pump article from a conde nast publication which talks about the huge rally, which sucks in a lot more buyers (well over $9)
there is a little volatility, as the pumper unloads some of the bitcoins that had been bought.
then the next day from the exact same conde nast organization comes the dump article, how bitcoin is the grease that helps arm a guerrilla army
and once the price starts to dip, commence the huge selloff bringing things back to about where they were before (with average selling price well over $8.50)
someone at conde nast knowing in advance that the armory article would be coming out would probably not publish the "omfg itz $9" article. but since it is two separate publications, there is plausible deniability.
Except the whole price increase is done before arstechnica reports on it.
