I had been raising a similar question a few years ago. My point was that in due course weak hands eventually get shaken out, and this inevitably leads to a stronger competition between the remaining market participants, the smarter ones. In this manner, it is not so much about becoming smarter or wiser (as most people are simply not capable of this feat) as about "natural selection" when only the smartest remain in this market at the end of the day
And it looks like we are pretty close to that "singularity event"
Or the "weak hands" might have also become wiser, and will not be easily shaken out anymore. Which makes for a stronger debate that the "wisest of the wiser traders" who anticipated it, would want to stay ahead, and would not wait for a "capitulation"
Personally, I don't think things are all that simple
From my perspective, it is a wrong approach as such, or wrong frame of reference if you please, to think in terms of "capitulation". As I wrote in one of my previous posts, if this market is to stay with us for long, say, like 2-3 years (or even if for just a few months), the terms like capitulation, bottom, major reversal are all going to lose any useful meaning. Basically, it is going to turn into nonstop bloodbath, with no regular bears or bulls but only with dogs in the pit
Apart from that, I don't say that a few weak hands couldn't and didn't in fact turn into strong ones over time as some certainly did. I'm talking about a bigger picture, obviously, where many common people lost their money and left for good. But I agree either it is the departure of weak hands or weak hands turning into strong ones, the competition became stronger while the market as a whole more ruthless and less forgiving (let's call it more "professional")