Topic: [2020-06-04] Bloomberg: “Bitcoin Toward $20,000 in 2020" - page 3. (Read 1072 times)
Six months left form now and almost form here if it must reach anywhere near 20k it has to be double in 6 months. Also, the first target for now would be crossing and stabilizing 10k levels and if it can sustain at these levels we would see some good highs for the years. Though anything above 15k levels for the year will also be the great result and rise.
Usually these big predictions end up being something completely opposite. Just take a look at what the mainstream media were saying when Bitcoin was about to go up and down. When it was actually in a bull market all those sites were skeptical and when it was reaching the top or beginnig its descent from the ATH they were talking about the great bull market and a lifetime opportunity.
There's a reason why most people miss these moves and never profit and that reason is most people want others to do the work for them. They wait for this or that puppet (like Tom Lee or McAfee) to tell them when to buy and it never ends well for them.
There's a reason why most people miss these moves and never profit and that reason is most people want others to do the work for them. They wait for this or that puppet (like Tom Lee or McAfee) to tell them when to buy and it never ends well for them.
Now I can't help but think that there is even a bigger dump on the way.
Blueprint of a crypto news website...
When you ran out of news or ideas, say:
"XXXX XXXXX said bitcoin might hit $XXXXXX this year!"
Always brings them hits.
Blueprint of a crypto news website...
When you ran out of news or ideas, say:
"XXXX XXXXX said bitcoin might hit $XXXXXX this year!"
Always brings them hits.
Bloomberg....LULZ
They're nothing but a mouthpiece for the corrupt banking industry & have been 100% wrong with all their predictions about Bitcoin since day one.
If they predict a price hike, you can be pretty sure it'll be a dump.
They're nothing but a mouthpiece for the corrupt banking industry & have been 100% wrong with all their predictions about Bitcoin since day one.
If they predict a price hike, you can be pretty sure it'll be a dump.
But what do you think about the possible impact of such an optimistic prediction made by Bloomberg on potential Bitcoin investors? Aren't we witnessing an effect right now?
It depends on how much someone thinks Bloomberg is an influential and important medium that can influence the broad masses? If we start from the assumption that they are the number 1 in terms of business news globally, then such speculation could have some impact on price. I have no specific data to say how influential they are, except for this article which gives some basic information about the most influential media when it comes to business news.
So, Bloomberg News is in the top 10 then, right? It's in good company along with Forbes, Reuters and Business Insider, imo.
And as for the effect, I wouldn't say I see it personally - because people aren't so naive as to invest based on newspaper headlines (at least not most), and the events of 2017/18 are still relatively fresh. It should not be forgotten that the price of BTC before the pandemic was almost identical to what it is today, so all these speculations should be taken with great caution.
The Bloomberg Crypto Outlook June 2020 edition was first published in June 1:
And then we had this spike the next day:
But the would-be bull run was canceled the same day, which means you are right, most people aren't so naive, and they just took advantage of the premature jump over $10k.
If you read the article, then clearly you can see on what they based this speculation. They first cite the pandemic as a possible accelerator of "Bitcoin’s maturation as an asset", and then they add the story of how Grayscale is buying more new mined BTC than what is currently being produced. It’s all nicely packaged, but will one institution lead to a new ATH this year?
Tether is also mentioned in the article, and fact we have today $10 billion of USDT, compared to $4 billion in May last year. I’ve never liked the idea of someone printing digital money without them actually having real money coverage, in this case US $. It is a known fact that as far as Tether things are concerned, things are not very clean, and that a certain percentage of USDT is probably on the market without any basis for issuing it. If that means that someone will use such an asset to buy a BTC and pump up its price, and then sell it for a fiat - it is nothing but money laundering, that is, a legal replacement of the useless for the useful.
Tether is also mentioned in the article, and fact we have today $10 billion of USDT, compared to $4 billion in May last year. I’ve never liked the idea of someone printing digital money without them actually having real money coverage, in this case US $. It is a known fact that as far as Tether things are concerned, things are not very clean, and that a certain percentage of USDT is probably on the market without any basis for issuing it. If that means that someone will use such an asset to buy a BTC and pump up its price, and then sell it for a fiat - it is nothing but money laundering, that is, a legal replacement of the useless for the useful.
Agreed! It appears you might agree with the Big Short movie storyline for bitcoin to occur hehehe?
I made a thread about it in the speculation subforum. However many of them think it was FUD despite some evidence of dishonesty on tether.
It wouldn't surprise me if it hit between $20,000 and $40,000 within the next 12 months (e.g. June 2021) given increasing demand, the halving, and increasing use cases. It wouldn't surprise me either if it was double that.
The thing is that no one knows, if they did, they could short it now or buy it up now and the price would reach the point sooner than they "knew". It is entertaining to speculate, but that is all it is, speculation as to the future.
The information about Grayscale absorbing 25% of the annual new supply is important. If an ETF is approved ever, just think about the supply it will need. It will be a tremendous amount if one or more ETFs are approved in the US, let alone if similar vehicles are approved around the world. Sure, people can buy individual coins and they do, but if you are sitting at the computer and want to buy $10,000 of bitcoin in your IRA at anything close to the spot price, it is a royal PITA. And ETF opens worlds of possibilities, so whenever it happens, it will have a big impact.
It is always important to remember that prices are set at the margin, so the halving in new supply plus even a small increase in demand can have an outsized impact on price.
The SEC needs to think about this. Sure, there could have been (and may still be) manipulation of the BTC fiat price on some exchanges, but ETF demand will dwarf much of the exchange demand and as ETFs come online, the ETF price will be more likely to impact the exchange price than the opposite. The SEC has it backwards over any reasonable timeframe.
As far as McAfee - Carlton is exactly right.
The thing is that no one knows, if they did, they could short it now or buy it up now and the price would reach the point sooner than they "knew". It is entertaining to speculate, but that is all it is, speculation as to the future.
The information about Grayscale absorbing 25% of the annual new supply is important. If an ETF is approved ever, just think about the supply it will need. It will be a tremendous amount if one or more ETFs are approved in the US, let alone if similar vehicles are approved around the world. Sure, people can buy individual coins and they do, but if you are sitting at the computer and want to buy $10,000 of bitcoin in your IRA at anything close to the spot price, it is a royal PITA. And ETF opens worlds of possibilities, so whenever it happens, it will have a big impact.
It is always important to remember that prices are set at the margin, so the halving in new supply plus even a small increase in demand can have an outsized impact on price.
The SEC needs to think about this. Sure, there could have been (and may still be) manipulation of the BTC fiat price on some exchanges, but ETF demand will dwarf much of the exchange demand and as ETFs come online, the ETF price will be more likely to impact the exchange price than the opposite. The SEC has it backwards over any reasonable timeframe.
As far as McAfee - Carlton is exactly right.
But what do you think about the possible impact of such an optimistic prediction made by Bloomberg on potential Bitcoin investors? Aren't we witnessing an effect right now?
It depends on how much someone thinks Bloomberg is an influential and important medium that can influence the broad masses? If we start from the assumption that they are the number 1 in terms of business news globally, then such speculation could have some impact on price. I have no specific data to say how influential they are, except for this article which gives some basic information about the most influential media when it comes to business news.
And as for the effect, I wouldn't say I see it personally - because people aren't so naive as to invest based on newspaper headlines (at least not most), and the events of 2017/18 are still relatively fresh. It should not be forgotten that the price of BTC before the pandemic was almost identical to what it is today, so all these speculations should be taken with great caution.
As I already wrote in another topic, if BTC follows the usual pattern of the last two halvings, then it is possible that in Q4 there we may see a bull run that will push us towards $20 000, which would then be a great starting point for a new big bull run in 2021.
Anyways, I think a lot of people are trusting McAfee too, with his name on an anti-virus, why not believe him also?
1. computer "Viruses" are an anachronism, they existed in the 1980's and 90's as a consequence of the appalling security of Microsoft Windows
2. John McAfee is a proven liar/fraudster
3. John McAfee isn't in any way associated with the McAfee AV software product for around 20 years now
Guys, like you, I know that their conclusions based on, what, thin air, yeah, maybe. I myself hate the so called "Technical Analysis", because it's like the proverbial broken clocks that show correct time twice a day.
But what do you think about the possible impact of such an optimistic prediction made by Bloomberg on potential Bitcoin investors? Aren't we witnessing an effect right now?
But what do you think about the possible impact of such an optimistic prediction made by Bloomberg on potential Bitcoin investors? Aren't we witnessing an effect right now?
Do you think that if you trust some entity or an individual with their predictions, it's going to happen already? It's hard to put that on a person when you think about it. Since it's an entity, it's somewhat the same, but it's still a guess though.
Anyways, I think a lot of people are trusting McAfee too, with his name on an anti-virus, why not believe him also?
I'm hoping to see a new ATH for Bitcoin, hoping to HODL more.
Anyways, I think a lot of people are trusting McAfee too, with his name on an anti-virus, why not believe him also?
I'm hoping to see a new ATH for Bitcoin, hoping to HODL more.
If you read the article, then clearly you can see on what they based this speculation. They first cite the pandemic as a possible accelerator of "Bitcoin’s maturation as an asset", and then they add the story of how Grayscale is buying more new mined BTC than what is currently being produced. It’s all nicely packaged, but will one institution lead to a new ATH this year?
Tether is also mentioned in the article, and fact we have today $10 billion of USDT, compared to $4 billion in May last year. I’ve never liked the idea of someone printing digital money without them actually having real money coverage, in this case US $. It is a known fact that as far as Tether things are concerned, things are not very clean, and that a certain percentage of USDT is probably on the market without any basis for issuing it. If that means that someone will use such an asset to buy a BTC and pump up its price, and then sell it for a fiat - it is nothing but money laundering, that is, a legal replacement of the useless for the useful.
And not only that, experts from Bloomberg say that it is possible that by the end of the year the price will reach even $28 000, because last year high was $14 000, so I guess they think it’s normal that we have at least 100% growth every year
Tether is also mentioned in the article, and fact we have today $10 billion of USDT, compared to $4 billion in May last year. I’ve never liked the idea of someone printing digital money without them actually having real money coverage, in this case US $. It is a known fact that as far as Tether things are concerned, things are not very clean, and that a certain percentage of USDT is probably on the market without any basis for issuing it. If that means that someone will use such an asset to buy a BTC and pump up its price, and then sell it for a fiat - it is nothing but money laundering, that is, a legal replacement of the useless for the useful.
And not only that, experts from Bloomberg say that it is possible that by the end of the year the price will reach even $28 000, because last year high was $14 000, so I guess they think it’s normal that we have at least 100% growth every year
Doesn't everything grow by 100% every year? haha.
Thanks for the summary of the articles. I've had the thought of "if not now, then when?" for if bitcoin isn't going to take off while many people are going remote and online, then what will it take?
I remain hopeful that tools are under development to continue to make things better in the future!
If you read the article, then clearly you can see on what they based this speculation. They first cite the pandemic as a possible accelerator of "Bitcoin’s maturation as an asset", and then they add the story of how Grayscale is buying more new mined BTC than what is currently being produced. It’s all nicely packaged, but will one institution lead to a new ATH this year?
Tether is also mentioned in the article, and fact we have today $10 billion of USDT, compared to $4 billion in May last year. I’ve never liked the idea of someone printing digital money without them actually having real money coverage, in this case US $. It is a known fact that as far as Tether things are concerned, things are not very clean, and that a certain percentage of USDT is probably on the market without any basis for issuing it. If that means that someone will use such an asset to buy a BTC and pump up its price, and then sell it for a fiat - it is nothing but money laundering, that is, a legal replacement of the useless for the useful.
And not only that, experts from Bloomberg say that it is possible that by the end of the year the price will reach even $28 000, because last year high was $14 000, so I guess they think it’s normal that we have at least 100% growth every year
Tether is also mentioned in the article, and fact we have today $10 billion of USDT, compared to $4 billion in May last year. I’ve never liked the idea of someone printing digital money without them actually having real money coverage, in this case US $. It is a known fact that as far as Tether things are concerned, things are not very clean, and that a certain percentage of USDT is probably on the market without any basis for issuing it. If that means that someone will use such an asset to buy a BTC and pump up its price, and then sell it for a fiat - it is nothing but money laundering, that is, a legal replacement of the useless for the useful.
And not only that, experts from Bloomberg say that it is possible that by the end of the year the price will reach even $28 000, because last year high was $14 000, so I guess they think it’s normal that we have at least 100% growth every year
In my view, I think that 20K is quite doable by Bitcoin even within this year. Right now, I can sense some momentum building though just like anything in cryptocurrency predicting can be a very risky business as there can be many manipulative forces also lurking around just waiting to show up at the moment they wanted to. Definitely, I would prefer to agree with Bloomberg rather than stick with the "dick" of John (just kidding).
I am skeptical about this. Did Bloomberg pay for Tom Lee's services as their new source for cryptospace analyis and predictions hehehe?
We are an independent research boutique, providing market strategy and sector research.
https://www.fundstrat.com
We are an independent research boutique, providing market strategy and sector research.
https://www.fundstrat.com
Tired of predictions, yes 
I am in wait and see mode, I don't consider any move below 16k relevant. Too many Bart Simpson fake high & lows, IMHO
I am in wait and see mode, I don't consider any move below 16k relevant. Too many Bart Simpson fake high & lows, IMHO
I know many of you guys sick of various predictions regarding Bitcoin price. But I think there is a difference between McAfee promising to eat his dick on national television if BTC didn't hit $1,000,000 by 2020 and an analysis made by Bloomberg. The latter one is more on a serious note. In fact, I think Bitcoin can hit a new ATH this year only because Bloomberg predicted it. Many people trust Bloomberg, and they can start buying BTC just out of FOMO. What do you guys think ?
Read more:
https://cointelegraph.com/news/bloomberg-bitcoin-will-approach-record-high-of-about-20-000-this-year
or read Bloomberg Crypto Outlook June 2020 edition here:
https://data.bloomberglp.com/professional/sites/10/Bloomberg-Indices-Outlook_Cryptos_June-2020.pdf
Read more:
https://cointelegraph.com/news/bloomberg-bitcoin-will-approach-record-high-of-about-20-000-this-year
or read Bloomberg Crypto Outlook June 2020 edition here:
https://data.bloomberglp.com/professional/sites/10/Bloomberg-Indices-Outlook_Cryptos_June-2020.pdf
Jump to: