Real Realm 價格REAL

I‘ve often heard that $BTC will rise because M2 rises along this chart. IMO this is complete nonsense and I‘ll explain you why. First of all most of these BTC/M2 comparisons are fundamentally flawed. Reasons: 1. Global M2 Money Supply is not denominated in Bitcoin or USD price terms. M2 measures all money supply (cash, checking, savings accounts, money market securities, etc.) globally — it’s trillions of dollars, not correlated 1:1 with Bitcoin’s USD price. Mapping it like this is fundamentally wrong. 2. The scaling is completely artificial. Often the M2 Money Supply (yellow line) is scaled on the Y axis onto the Bitcoin chart — but without proper normalization. They basically “forced” it to look similar by stretching it over the Bitcoin price range — no setious Analyst does this 3. The 90 Days Offset is arbitrary and misleading. Shifting one dataset by 90 days forward doesn’t prove causality. It’s just data fitting after the fact to create fake-looking “correlations.” 4. Exponential M2 Growth is real — but Bitcoin doesn’t mechanically follow it. Yes, more money printing (higher M2) theoretically leads to asset inflation, but Bitcoin’s price is influenced by many more factors: adoption, speculation, regulation, mining economics, liquidity cycles, etc. Bitcoin =/= direct function of M2. It’s a severe oversimplification. 5. M2 goes vertical — Bitcoin does not so far. If Bitcoin would mirror this M2 Graph directly, you’d already see Bitcoin at higher prices. Most of these charts try to force a narrative (“Bitcoin will explode because M2 exploded”) without any real statistical or economic backing. It’s pure hopium propaganda, not analysis. So let’s dive into the TRUTH of the correlation between $BTC and M2 and let’s add SPX as reference. Have a look at chart attached: Global M2 (Blue): Steady, slow growth year by year. Think of it as a slow-moving ocean current S&P 500 (Green): Gradual, more predictable growth, with relatively mild fluctuations compared to Bitcoin. Bitcoin (Orange): Very volatile movements — huge booms and busts — but when smoothed, you can see that Bitcoin’s general trend sometimes moves in the same direction as the S&P 500. => Bitcoin behaves more like a “high-beta tech stock” rather than a pure inflation hedge tied to M2. So this is the true relationship between BTC and M2 and SPX: Bitcoin vs S&P 500: There is some directional correlation — when stocks rise, Bitcoin often rises too (but with much bigger swings). Bitcoin vs M2: There is a weak long-term background support from M2 growth, but short-term movements are not tightly linked at all. Bitcoin is a liquidity amplifier — But it is NOT a simple liquidity mirror. It thrives when liquidity is abundant, but it explodes or crashes based on market psychology, not just M2 expansion. In other words: Bitcoin is fueled by liquidity, but it’s moved by excitement, speculation, and risk appetite far more than M2 itself.

I‘ve often heard that $BTC will go parabolic because M2 does too. IMO this is complete nonsense and I‘ll explain you why. First of all most of these BTC/M2 comparison charts are fundamentally flawed (example attached). Reasons: 1. Global M2 Money Supply is not denominated in Bitcoin or USD price terms. M2 measures all money supply (cash, checking, savings accounts, money market securities, etc.) globally — it’s trillions of dollars, not correlated 1:1 with Bitcoin’s USD price. Mapping it like this is fundamentally wrong. 2. The scaling is completely artificial. Often the M2 Money Supply (yellow line) is scaled on the Y axis onto the Bitcoin chart — but without proper normalization. They basically “forced” it to look similar by stretching it over the Bitcoin price range — no setious Analyst does this 3. The 90 Days Offset is arbitrary and misleading. Shifting one dataset by 90 days forward doesn’t prove causality. It’s just data fitting after the fact to create fake-looking “correlations.” 4. Exponential M2 Growth is real — but Bitcoin doesn’t mechanically follow it. Yes, more money printing (higher M2) theoretically leads to asset inflation, but Bitcoin’s price is influenced by many more factors: adoption, speculation, regulation, mining economics, liquidity cycles, etc. Bitcoin =/= direct function of M2. It’s a severe oversimplification. 5. M2 goes vertical — Bitcoin does not so far. If Bitcoin would mirror this M2 Graph directly, you’d already see Bitcoin at higher prices. Most of these charts try to force a narrative (“Bitcoin will explode because M2 exploded”) without any real statistical or economic backing. It’s pure hopium propaganda, not analysis. So let’s dive into the TRUTH of the correlation between $BTC and M2 and let’s add SPX as reference. Have a look at chart attached: Global M2 (Blue): Steady, slow growth year by year. Think of it as a slow-moving ocean current S&P 500 (Green): Gradual, more predictable growth, with relatively mild fluctuations compared to Bitcoin. Bitcoin (Orange): Very volatile movements — huge booms and busts — but when smoothed, you can see that Bitcoin’s general trend sometimes moves in the same direction as the S&P 500. => Bitcoin behaves more like a “high-beta tech stock” rather than a pure inflation hedge tied to M2. So this is the true relationship between BTC and M2 and SPX: Bitcoin vs S&P 500: There is some directional correlation — when stocks rise, Bitcoin often rises too (but with much bigger swings). Bitcoin vs M2: There is a weak long-term background support from M2 growth, but short-term movements are not tightly linked at all. Bitcoin is a liquidity amplifier — But it is NOT a simple liquidity mirror. It thrives when liquidity is abundant, but it explodes or crashes based on market psychology, not just M2 expansion. In other words: Bitcoin is fueled by liquidity, but it’s moved by excitement, speculation, and risk appetite far more than M2 itself.

@MalikZakiAwan8 there seems to be a real lack of understanding between forecasting and having a level where you want to take a trade.

Dune is a real community 🫶🏻

SEC Commissioner Hester Pierce has called for better crypto regulation in the United States. Peirce, who acts as the head of the crypto task force, addressed attendees at the crypto custody landmark that was recently held in Washington D.C. In her opening statement, the SEC Commissioner mentioned that financial firms in the United States have been going around crypto in a way that is not so appealing. Peirce likened the act to a children’s game “the floor is lava,” but noted that they were doing it in the dark. “Children often play a game called “the floor is lava.” The game requires you to leap from one piece of furniture to the next without falling or touching the ground—otherwise, you will be burned by the imaginary molten lava below,” she said. In her statement, Peirce mentioned that a real-life version of that game is presently happening, relating it to the way the country approaches crypto regulation and crypto custody. “A D.C. version of this game is our regulatory approach to crypto assets and crypto asset custody in particular. The twist in the regulatory version is that it is largely played in the dark: burning legal lava and no lamps to illuminate the way,” she added. She added that like in the game, firms that are planning to engage in digital assets must avoid holding it directly because of the unclear regulatory rules in the country. She added that to engage in crypto-related activities, SEC registrants have had to move from one poorly regulated space to another, ensuring that they never touch any digital asset. Peirce added that the market will likely not develop because brokers do not know how to handle assets, hence leading them to stop facilitating its trade. “If investment advisers do not know which crypto assets are securities, what types of entities are qualified custodians, and whether exercising staking or voting rights will result in custody violations, advisers may not be able to serve their clients’ best interests,” she continued. In her statement, the SEC Commissioner mentioned that their approach to regulation should cut across differences across several digital assets. “Our regulatory approach should recognize the differences across crypto assets. Qualified custodians exist for some crypto assets, but for others, self-custody might be the safer option,” she said. She also admitted that any regulatory framework should not stand in the way of self-custody or trading without the use of intermediaries. She mentioned that digital assets were originally created to foster self-custody and trade, noting that there were never supposed to be intermediaries in the sector. She added that the regulatory framework should support this aspect of the market. SEC Commissioner Mark Uyeda echoed the same sentiment at the event, noting that as SEC registrants continue to work with digital assets, it is important that they have access to custodial options that meet legal and regulatory requirements. He also advised that the agency should consider letting advisers use “state-chartered limited-purpose trust companies” with authorities to hold digital assets as qualified custodians. Meanwhile, the recently appointed SEC chairman Paul Atkins said that he expects huge benefits from blockchain technology, noting that it is achievable through risk mitigation, transparency, efficiency, and cost-cutting. He added that one of his goals is to ensure that the SEC would be able to facilitate clear rules for digital assets, noting that his predecessor, Gary Gensler, contributed to the uncertainty in the market. He added that he wants to engage with market participants and work with colleagues in President Trump’s administration and Congress to ensure that a framework that is “fit-for-purpose” is established. Cryptopolitan Academy: Coming Soon - A New Way to Earn Passive Income with DeFi in 2025. Learn More