Stock market is not safe haven for everybody all commodities are vulnerable to crash even the most stable one on the line. Thats why investing in stock market serious and tough call. Decisions matters its very important and sometimes you need to execute thorough research before you engage in any investments like cryptos.
Yes I agree with your opinion, the stock market is not a safe place, anyone can lose in it, maybe many of them just want to reap the benefits without learning how to predict and minimize the risk that will arise, and they will only get the loss , And as you said as well as his first to learn to minimize the loss or risk that will overwhelm you,
Topic: Let's have a serious talk about high risks. - page 2. (Read 2370 times)
Stock market is not safe haven for everybody all commodities are vulnerable to crash even the most stable one on the line. Thats why investing in stock market serious and tough call. Decisions matters its very important and sometimes you need to execute thorough research before you engage in any investments like cryptos.
Yes I agree with your opinion, the stock market is not a safe place, anyone can lose in it, maybe many of them just want to reap the benefits without learning how to predict and minimize the risk that will arise, and they will only get the loss , And as you said as well as his first to learn to minimize the loss or risk that will overwhelm you,Of course, anything has two sides, if you want to make money quickly, you must accept the risks, luck is indispensable. Conversely, if you want to be safe, do not get into the stock market, work your way up.
We all saw this coming.
It's about that time.
I'll tell you what. We can keep our $100B market cap if each and every one of you goes out and sets up shop with bitcoin or helps an existing business integrate crypto in less than a month. Colds calls, door to door, vistaprint, hail marry.
I don't believe in that. I don't want to. I believe people are going to start taking high risks. The only thing that's close to the reciprocal of the crash is something at 1 sat with nowhere to go but up.
Who thinks we're gonna bounce? Are people investing in 1sat coins in hopes of making extreme gains? Like all or nothing?
I am very on edge because I know there is still a way to make money.
All these coins are in the green. Except by the hour
There's got to be one that's a sure shot up. There's got to be some data scraping that can figure out which one its gonna be.
All of the investment have a risk but many of them have a high risk. The higher the risk the higher the profit that you will earn and gain. It's about that time.
I'll tell you what. We can keep our $100B market cap if each and every one of you goes out and sets up shop with bitcoin or helps an existing business integrate crypto in less than a month. Colds calls, door to door, vistaprint, hail marry.
I don't believe in that. I don't want to. I believe people are going to start taking high risks. The only thing that's close to the reciprocal of the crash is something at 1 sat with nowhere to go but up.
Who thinks we're gonna bounce? Are people investing in 1sat coins in hopes of making extreme gains? Like all or nothing?
I am very on edge because I know there is still a way to make money.
All these coins are in the green. Except by the hour
There's got to be one that's a sure shot up. There's got to be some data scraping that can figure out which one its gonna be.
If you think the fundamentals of Bitcoins are strong enough, you won't worry about a small drop such as this. Corrections happen in every market, and with the higher volatility of Bitcoin the swings are stronger of course.
We are know the price of Cryptocurrency in few months ago are fake by bubble growth creating from March. After XRP rising up from @500 sat to @7500 sat and virus WannaCry use Bitcoin for extort, the crypto market has become a interesting place for investor anywhere on the world's, special people from HYIP, Ponzi, MLM ...With that happens, it creating a wave growth and end in June! Now, all crypto in market are correction and falldown to real value
All crypto currency is now used more for speculation than for trading. This contributes to the fact that we constantly see price spikes like on a roller coaster. The risk in speculative operations is always very high and it does not depend on currency.
All these coins are in the green. Except by the hour
That says it all.
People who see something as high risk tend to believe it's so because they see the hour to hour fluctuations as being the reason why the price is what it is.
Stock market is not safe haven for everybody all commodities are vulnerable to crash even the most stable one on the line. Thats why investing in stock market serious and tough call. Decisions matters its very important and sometimes you need to execute thorough research before you engage in any investments like cryptos.
Yes I agree with your opinion, the stock market is not a safe place, anyone can lose in it, maybe many of them just want to reap the benefits without learning how to predict and minimize the risk that will arise, and they will only get the loss , And as you said as well as his first to learn to minimize the loss or risk that will overwhelm you,
Alright, alright, I see your point Trading volume by itself does indeed say very little about how much money went into the market. I just find it problematic to argue against money entering the alt coin market solely based on the fact that the most commonly used metrics are imperfect. Especially since you could argue pretty much the same about money entering Bitcoin. But then again I guess that wasn't what you were trying to say in the first place
Trading volume by itself does indeed say very little about how much money went into the market. I just find it problematic to argue against money entering the alt coin market solely based on the fact that the most commonly used metrics are imperfect. Especially since you could argue pretty much the same about money entering Bitcoin. But then again I guess that wasn't what you were trying to say in the first placeMy point was in fact rather simple
The money which entered the altcoin bubble could not possibly fuel the Bitcoin bubble as well simply because the Bitcoin market is by far greater and vaster than any altcoin market taken separately or even all altcoin markets taken together (if we throw away that bullshit metric called "market cap"). I'd rather say it is the money that went into Bitcoin first that made altocoins grow too since some of this money got poured into them as well (minor part of it, obviously). The fact that major altcoins grew a lot more than Bitcoin (in relative terms) proves how tiny their respective markets are in comparison with that of Bitcoin. In other words, it doesn't take a lot to see them hurt
And here is where I disagree with you, because while we don't know exactly how much money went into alt coins, we still know that a lot of trade is taking place. Anecdotally people are using Bitcoin as a gateway to the alt coin market as that's often the easiest way to get money on exchanges. This too, drives the Bitcoin price, albeit admittedly to an unknown extent
What do you disagree with?
I guess you should first define what exactly you are disagreeing with. Could you name even one major exchange that wouldn't allow you to buy top altcoins directly with fiat? The exchanges that I know and personally trade at (Btc-e, Bitfinex) allow to buy any altcoin directly with the US dollar and a few other fiat currencies. Even if there are some obscure exchanges that list only one trading pair (say USD_BTC), they are utterly insignificant and inconsequential. The times when you should have first bought Bitcoin and then convert to an altcoin of your choice are long gone (at least, in respect to major altcoins). Even Coinbase is now selling Litecoin and Ethereum
Alright, alright, I see your point Trading volume by itself does indeed say very little about how much money went into the market. I just find it problematic to argue against money entering the alt coin market solely based on the fact that the most commonly used metrics are imperfect. Especially since you could argue pretty much the same about money entering Bitcoin. But then again I guess that wasn't what you were trying to say in the first place
Trading volume by itself does indeed say very little about how much money went into the market. I just find it problematic to argue against money entering the alt coin market solely based on the fact that the most commonly used metrics are imperfect. Especially since you could argue pretty much the same about money entering Bitcoin. But then again I guess that wasn't what you were trying to say in the first placeMy point was in fact rather simple
The money which entered the altcoin bubble could not possibly fuel the Bitcoin bubble as well simply because the Bitcoin market is by far greater and vaster than any altcoin market taken separately or even all altcoin markets taken together (if we throw away that bullshit metric called "market cap"). I'd rather say it is the money that went into Bitcoin first that made altocoins grow too since some of this money got poured into them as well (minor part of it, obviously). The fact that major altcoins grew a lot more than Bitcoin (in relative terms) proves how tiny their respective markets are in comparison with that of Bitcoin. In other words, it doesn't take a lot to see them hurt
And here is where I disagree with you, because while we don't know exactly how much money went into alt coins, we still know that a lot of trade is taking place. Anecdotally people are using Bitcoin as a gateway to the alt coin market as that's often the easiest way to get money on exchanges. This too, drives the Bitcoin price, albeit admittedly to an unknown extent.
I wouldn't bother investing into them no matter what they are red or green currently. It's all about the strategies that you make by yourself. In any way the coin has to come up if it is worth investing and with thoughtful project lines behind it. Looking at your screenshot I'm seeing the panic board where people are just taking out what they could but they are not really learning the market. It's just hype of current market nothing much can be done with such crowd.
If you think the fundamentals of Bitcoins are strong enough, you won't worry about a small drop such as this. Corrections happen in every market, and with the higher volatility of Bitcoin the swings are stronger of course.
Correct there is no point trying to take measures that will probably not have any effect in the overall picture of bitcoin, it is better to let bitcoin find its price without any attempts to change the market since the next drop in price could be even worst. Sometimes a price crash is good for the market.It clears all the high risk players who trade only
for profits and don`t care about the cryptocurrency adoption.
Most of the cryptocurrencies(including bitcoin) are so small and have so much free space to grow.
Sooner or later the market will crash and it will clear all the shitty altcoins and keep the coins that have stability and big communities who support them.
for profits and don`t care about the cryptocurrency adoption.
Most of the cryptocurrencies(including bitcoin) are so small and have so much free space to grow.
Sooner or later the market will crash and it will clear all the shitty altcoins and keep the coins that have stability and big communities who support them.
You just made perfect proposal here. The crypto currency adoption is also far important than just making profit from it. That is the way I also think and I would love to spread the word in that projection only. The market crash will make those founders as well as investors bit scared about their money (what they care for) and they will take down their greedy investment so as to we end up having only pure investors with care for crypto adoption too. They will be the real risk takers for making a world full of crypto currency and its capitalism in there.
Trading volumes are even less relevant to the matter discussed
They basically show how many times a certain number of coins changed hands at trading but this itself tells us nothing about the absolute amount of money that a coin received within a certain period of time. If you sold and bought 1 coin worth 1 dollar 1 million times, you would get 1 million dollar trading volume (actually, 2 million dollars), while in reality you have been trading just 1 dollar, and the same 1 dollar at that. To really see the amount of cash invested, we should know the number of coins being traded (i.e. not the volume of trades) and the change in price. For example, if there is 1M litecoins actively traded (the number is entirely random), and we want to raise the price from 20 dollars to 30 dollars per coin, then it would require us, say, 10M dollars to make this rise possible. This is a very rough estimate, of course (it would require more than that), but it shows the logic behind the correct reasoning
They basically show how many times a certain number of coins changed hands at trading but this itself tells us nothing about the absolute amount of money that a coin received within a certain period of time. If you sold and bought 1 coin worth 1 dollar 1 million times, you would get 1 million dollar trading volume (actually, 2 million dollars), while in reality you have been trading just 1 dollar, and the same 1 dollar at that. To really see the amount of cash invested, we should know the number of coins being traded (i.e. not the volume of trades) and the change in price. For example, if there is 1M litecoins actively traded (the number is entirely random), and we want to raise the price from 20 dollars to 30 dollars per coin, then it would require us, say, 10M dollars to make this rise possible. This is a very rough estimate, of course (it would require more than that), but it shows the logic behind the correct reasoning
Assuming that BTC trading volume is calculated the same as alt coin trading volume, you can still extract useful information if you look at the trading volumes in relation to each other (assuming the volumes are not artificially inflated due to missing trading fees like in China before the PBOC intervened). ETH is trading at about the same USD volume as BTC. XRP, LTC and ETC are behind with quite some distance, but still at about 1/5th of BTC's USD volume each. That's a lot of coins changing hands, even under the assumption that alts are more heavily affected by daytraders than BTC. It's not a perfect metric, but I don't think any metric is
And what does it change?
In respect to the question raised? Yes, you likely can compare real trading volumes, but these figures still won't tell you anything about how much cash every coin got injected, say, during the last half a year. If someone bought 1 million bitcoins today (just an arbitrary number) with 2 billion dollars and then packed these coins in his wallet for a few years, this won't seriously affect trading volume figures. Tomorrow they will be the same as they were yesterday. This may be a useful metric but it is utterly useless regarding estimation of how much fiat got invested in a certain coin (this is what the question is about)
Alright, alright, I see your point
Trading volume by itself does indeed say very little about how much money went into the market. I just find it problematic to argue against money entering the alt coin market solely based on the fact that the most commonly used metrics are imperfect. Especially since you could argue pretty much the same about money entering Bitcoin. But then again I guess that wasn't what you were trying to say in the first placeMy point was in fact rather simple
The money which entered the altcoin bubble could not possibly fuel the Bitcoin bubble as well simply because the Bitcoin market is by far greater and vaster than any altcoin market taken separately or even all altcoin markets taken together (if we throw away that bullshit metric called "market cap"). I'd rather say it is the money that went into Bitcoin first that made altocoins grow too since some of this money got poured into them as well (minor part of it, obviously). The fact that major altcoins grew a lot more than Bitcoin (in relative terms) proves how tiny their respective markets are in comparison with that of Bitcoin. In other words, it doesn't take a lot to see them hurt
It is nearly impossible to align everyone in single row and expect them to show group behavior. The main reason why crypto market has grown to this stage is random movement. Lots of people coming in market, buying, selling, holding, using thus molding price. You can't expect everyone forms a movement and give excessive utility to bitcoins, one need to be patient and try best to give our contribution.
Surprisingly (or maybe not, considered how human nature works) people are far more inclined to think alike only when there is FUD about BTC around.We had major price crashes in the past just because someone, somewhere started a rumour that Bitcoin will be outlawed in certain countries,
that BTC is not to be trusted and it is short lived ponzi, that government will ban it in the future etc. and now part of our community is scared to death that split is imminent.
It is nearly impossible to align everyone in single row and expect them to show group behavior. The main reason why crypto market has grown to this stage is random movement. Lots of people coming in market, buying, selling, holding, using thus molding price. You can't expect everyone forms a movement and give excessive utility to bitcoins, one need to be patient and try best to give our contribution.
We all saw this coming.
It's about that time.
I'll tell you what. We can keep our $100B market cap if each and every one of you goes out and sets up shop with bitcoin or helps an existing business integrate crypto in less than a month. Colds calls, door to door, vistaprint, hail marry.
I don't believe in that. I don't want to. I believe people are going to start taking high risks. The only thing that's close to the reciprocal of the crash is something at 1 sat with nowhere to go but up.
Who thinks we're gonna bounce? Are people investing in 1sat coins in hopes of making extreme gains? Like all or nothing?
I am very on edge because I know there is still a way to make money.
All these coins are in the green. Except by the hour
There's got to be one that's a sure shot up. There's got to be some data scraping that can figure out which one its gonna be.
Taking high risk is the way to get more profit and basically to be rich but I think investing in 1sats coin are so risky I mean it is just like gamble on 50/50 change but the again that is way of taking risk but it is more like gamble that business thing or trading. I am not fan of that strategy. It's about that time.
I'll tell you what. We can keep our $100B market cap if each and every one of you goes out and sets up shop with bitcoin or helps an existing business integrate crypto in less than a month. Colds calls, door to door, vistaprint, hail marry.
I don't believe in that. I don't want to. I believe people are going to start taking high risks. The only thing that's close to the reciprocal of the crash is something at 1 sat with nowhere to go but up.
Who thinks we're gonna bounce? Are people investing in 1sat coins in hopes of making extreme gains? Like all or nothing?
I am very on edge because I know there is still a way to make money.
All these coins are in the green. Except by the hour
There's got to be one that's a sure shot up. There's got to be some data scraping that can figure out which one its gonna be.
Trading volumes are even less relevant to the matter discussed
They basically show how many times a certain number of coins changed hands at trading but this itself tells us nothing about the absolute amount of money that a coin received within a certain period of time. If you sold and bought 1 coin worth 1 dollar 1 million times, you would get 1 million dollar trading volume (actually, 2 million dollars), while in reality you have been trading just 1 dollar, and the same 1 dollar at that. To really see the amount of cash invested, we should know the number of coins being traded (i.e. not the volume of trades) and the change in price. For example, if there is 1M litecoins actively traded (the number is entirely random), and we want to raise the price from 20 dollars to 30 dollars per coin, then it would require us, say, 10M dollars to make this rise possible. This is a very rough estimate, of course (it would require more than that), but it shows the logic behind the correct reasoning
They basically show how many times a certain number of coins changed hands at trading but this itself tells us nothing about the absolute amount of money that a coin received within a certain period of time. If you sold and bought 1 coin worth 1 dollar 1 million times, you would get 1 million dollar trading volume (actually, 2 million dollars), while in reality you have been trading just 1 dollar, and the same 1 dollar at that. To really see the amount of cash invested, we should know the number of coins being traded (i.e. not the volume of trades) and the change in price. For example, if there is 1M litecoins actively traded (the number is entirely random), and we want to raise the price from 20 dollars to 30 dollars per coin, then it would require us, say, 10M dollars to make this rise possible. This is a very rough estimate, of course (it would require more than that), but it shows the logic behind the correct reasoning
Assuming that BTC trading volume is calculated the same as alt coin trading volume, you can still extract useful information if you look at the trading volumes in relation to each other (assuming the volumes are not artificially inflated due to missing trading fees like in China before the PBOC intervened). ETH is trading at about the same USD volume as BTC. XRP, LTC and ETC are behind with quite some distance, but still at about 1/5th of BTC's USD volume each. That's a lot of coins changing hands, even under the assumption that alts are more heavily affected by daytraders than BTC. It's not a perfect metric, but I don't think any metric is
And what does it change?
In respect to the question raised? Yes, you likely can compare real trading volumes, but these figures still won't tell you anything about how much cash every coin got injected, say, during the last half a year. If someone bought 1 million bitcoins today (just an arbitrary number) with 2 billion dollars and then packed these coins in his wallet for a few years, this won't seriously affect trading volume figures. Tomorrow they will be the same as they were yesterday. This may be a useful metric but it is utterly useless regarding estimation of how much fiat got invested in a certain coin (this is what the question is about)
Alright, alright, I see your point
Trading volume by itself does indeed say very little about how much money went into the market. I just find it problematic to argue against money entering the alt coin market solely based on the fact that the most commonly used metrics are imperfect. Especially since you could argue pretty much the same about money entering Bitcoin. But then again I guess that wasn't what you were trying to say in the first place.I cannot support this view
And I guess I know what made you come to this erroneous conclusion (i.e. that "Bitcoin rise was fueled by the alt bubble"). I think you looked at the total market cap figures of altcoins and got tricked into thinking that there was something real behind this rise, i.e. real money. As to me, this was nowhere near the case. These market cap figures were bullshit, since the amount of fiat that it took to pump this seeming bubble was miserable (in Bitcoin terms). In other words, it is Bitcoin that got pumped with the bulk of money which made it rise, and only some dust ended up in altcoins. But since altcoins are dwarfs beside Bitcoin even this dust was sufficient to inflate the altocoin bubble and make it look enormous and intimidating
And I guess I know what made you come to this erroneous conclusion (i.e. that "Bitcoin rise was fueled by the alt bubble"). I think you looked at the total market cap figures of altcoins and got tricked into thinking that there was something real behind this rise, i.e. real money. As to me, this was nowhere near the case. These market cap figures were bullshit, since the amount of fiat that it took to pump this seeming bubble was miserable (in Bitcoin terms). In other words, it is Bitcoin that got pumped with the bulk of money which made it rise, and only some dust ended up in altcoins. But since altcoins are dwarfs beside Bitcoin even this dust was sufficient to inflate the altocoin bubble and make it look enormous and intimidating
While I agree with you that the market cap figures are a bad metric, I still wouldn't dismiss the impact of alt coin speculation on the Bitcoin price. The volume of ETH, XRP, LTC and ETC show that there's indeed quite a lot of trading going on. Sure, a lot of the volume is driven by pumps and herd mentality, but it's still nothing to scoff at, especially for such a young market
Trading volumes are even less relevant to the matter discussed
They basically show how many times a certain number of coins changed hands at trading but this itself tells us nothing about the absolute amount of money that a coin received within a certain period of time. If you sold and bought 1 coin worth 1 dollar 1 million times, you would get 1 million dollar trading volume (actually, 2 million dollars), while in reality you have been trading just 1 dollar, and the same 1 dollar at that. To really see the amount of cash invested, we should know the number of coins being traded (i.e. not the volume of trades) and the change in price. For example, if there is 1M litecoins actively traded (the number is entirely random), and we want to raise the price from 20 dollars to 30 dollars per coin, then it would require us, say, 10M dollars to make this rise possible. This is a very rough estimate, of course (it would require more than that), but it shows the logic behind the correct reasoning
Assuming that BTC trading volume is calculated the same as alt coin trading volume, you can still extract useful information if you look at the trading volumes in relation to each other (assuming the volumes are not artificially inflated due to missing trading fees like in China before the PBOC intervened). ETH is trading at about the same USD volume as BTC. XRP, LTC and ETC are behind with quite some distance, but still at about 1/5th of BTC's USD volume each. That's a lot of coins changing hands, even under the assumption that alts are more heavily affected by daytraders than BTC. It's not a perfect metric, but I don't think any metric is
And what does it change?
In respect to the question raised? Yes, you likely can compare real trading volumes, but these figures still won't tell you anything about how much cash every coin got injected into, say, during the last half a year. If someone bought 1 million bitcoins today (just an arbitrary number) with 2 billion dollars and then packed these coins in his wallet for a few years, this won't seriously affect trading volume figures. Tomorrow they will be the same as they were yesterday. This may be a useful metric but it is utterly useless regarding estimation of how much fiat got invested in a certain coin (this is what the question is about)
We all saw this coming.
It's about that time.
I'll tell you what. We can keep our $100B market cap if each and every one of you goes out and sets up shop with bitcoin or helps an existing business integrate crypto in less than a month. Colds calls, door to door, vistaprint, hail marry.
I don't believe in that. I don't want to. I believe people are going to start taking high risks. The only thing that's close to the reciprocal of the crash is something at 1 sat with nowhere to go but up.
Who thinks we're gonna bounce? Are people investing in 1sat coins in hopes of making extreme gains? Like all or nothing?
I am very on edge because I know there is still a way to make money.
All these coins are in the green. Except by the hour
There's got to be one that's a sure shot up. There's got to be some data scraping that can figure out which one its gonna be.
Accept the ups and down of the market, this is the kind of market you decided to join there is no point to try to artificially keep the bubble going for more time, let it crash and find its new level and we will build from there. It's about that time.
I'll tell you what. We can keep our $100B market cap if each and every one of you goes out and sets up shop with bitcoin or helps an existing business integrate crypto in less than a month. Colds calls, door to door, vistaprint, hail marry.
I don't believe in that. I don't want to. I believe people are going to start taking high risks. The only thing that's close to the reciprocal of the crash is something at 1 sat with nowhere to go but up.
Who thinks we're gonna bounce? Are people investing in 1sat coins in hopes of making extreme gains? Like all or nothing?
I am very on edge because I know there is still a way to make money.
All these coins are in the green. Except by the hour
There's got to be one that's a sure shot up. There's got to be some data scraping that can figure out which one its gonna be.
I cannot support this view
And I guess I know what made you come to this erroneous conclusion (i.e. that "Bitcoin rise was fueled by the alt bubble"). I think you looked at the total market cap figures of altcoins and got tricked into thinking that there was something real behind this rise, i.e. real money. As to me, this was nowhere near the case. These market cap figures were bullshit, since the amount of fiat that it took to pump this seeming bubble was miserable (in Bitcoin terms). In other words, it is Bitcoin that got pumped with the bulk of money which made it rise, and only some dust ended up in altcoins. But since altcoins are dwarfs beside Bitcoin even this dust was sufficient to inflate the altocoin bubble and make it look enormous and intimidating
And I guess I know what made you come to this erroneous conclusion (i.e. that "Bitcoin rise was fueled by the alt bubble"). I think you looked at the total market cap figures of altcoins and got tricked into thinking that there was something real behind this rise, i.e. real money. As to me, this was nowhere near the case. These market cap figures were bullshit, since the amount of fiat that it took to pump this seeming bubble was miserable (in Bitcoin terms). In other words, it is Bitcoin that got pumped with the bulk of money which made it rise, and only some dust ended up in altcoins. But since altcoins are dwarfs beside Bitcoin even this dust was sufficient to inflate the altocoin bubble and make it look enormous and intimidating
While I agree with you that the market cap figures are a bad metric, I still wouldn't dismiss the impact of alt coin speculation on the Bitcoin price. The volume of ETH, XRP, LTC and ETC show that there's indeed quite a lot of trading going on. Sure, a lot of the volume is driven by pumps and herd mentality, but it's still nothing to scoff at, especially for such a young market
Trading volumes are even less relevant to the matter discussed
They basically show how many times a certain number of coins changed hands at trading but this itself tells us nothing about the absolute amount of money that a coin received within a certain period of time. If you sold and bought 1 coin worth 1 dollar 1 million times, you would get 1 million dollar trading volume (actually, 2 million dollars), while in reality you have been trading just 1 dollar, and the same 1 dollar at that. To really see the amount of cash invested, we should know the number of coins being traded (i.e. not the volume of trades) and the change in price. For example, if there is 1M litecoins actively traded (the number is entirely random), and we want to raise the price from 20 dollars to 30 dollars per coin, then it would require us, say, 10M dollars to make this rise possible. This is a very rough estimate, of course (it would require more than that), but it shows the logic behind the correct reasoning
Assuming that BTC trading volume is calculated the same as alt coin trading volume, you can still extract useful information if you look at the trading volumes in relation to each other (assuming the volumes are not artificially inflated due to missing trading fees like in China before the PBOC intervened). ETH is trading at about the same USD volume as BTC. XRP, LTC and ETC are behind with quite some distance, but still at about 1/5th of BTC's USD volume each. That's a lot of coins changing hands, even under the assumption that alts are more heavily affected by daytraders than BTC. It's not a perfect metric, but I don't think any metric is.
Jump to: