MURK is the favorite altcoin of the decoupling concept.
In use, there are a lot of good reasons to want altcoins to maintain very separate valuations from Bitcoin. During the latest upswing from the 5,200-5,300 range to 5,500 LTC showed persistent fiat price stability, shedding BTC value in concert with that coin’s increase, hovering at around 77-80USD.
But this lever of price stability seems more a pairing with murk than it does with reality. The only way to know for sure is if LTC and others will retain their fiat values while the price of BTC decreases while LTC and others increase in BTC value, maintaining fiat stability. Yet BTC price volatility and those surges which characterize the market seem to be an essential part of the dynamic which has attracted investors and increased the market cap, imparting the well-known capacity for wealth creation to all crypto assets.
And, that’s why this mechanism is murky, because decoupling itself isn’t so much a mechanism as it is a concept, one around which trading behavior might rally while FUD manifests speculation as to the direction BTC will take if we are indeed at the end of the bearish tail resulting from the 2017 plunge, or too soon in estimates of a market moving on to BTC trending.
But are you willing to take that risk; to watch BTC plunge while holding on to altcoins which have demonstrated fiat stickiness on BTC’s upswing in the hope of seeing the same, in reverse, should BTC do what many believe it will and implode, either bouncing back from a retest of supports or altogether finding a new floor beneath them?
So, where does altcoin stickiness to fiat currencies come from other than the growth in number and robust trading of pairings? Is it a good thing, or a bad thing; a necessary thing, or something we can ignore? And however ‘stickiness’ is accomplished, if it can or should be, will maintaining altcoin valuation stability during BTC swings serve a purpose which runs contrary to the expectations believers have for cryptocurrency, in general, or is the ability to spend with some modicum of stability anytime and the implied market stability this represents more important to the continued health of exchanges overall?
As questions go, these are the tip of the iceberg, and it’s doubtful the iceberg will melt all too soon. If market cap growth is to keep pace as the market matures, a new class of investors will likely look to spending stability in at least several assets before taking the plunge. It’s that, or crypto players who collate real world assets with crypto assets, like real estate, will change the market and take their creation into a retirement where they don’t have to look at the screen coaching along a menagerie of trading bots. If it really were about redistribution of and access to wealth, however, that may be the very kind of decoupling we’ve been looking for crypto to create all along.
But this lever of price stability seems more a pairing with murk than it does with reality. The only way to know for sure is if LTC and others will retain their fiat values while the price of BTC decreases while LTC and others increase in BTC value, maintaining fiat stability. Yet BTC price volatility and those surges which characterize the market seem to be an essential part of the dynamic which has attracted investors and increased the market cap, imparting the well-known capacity for wealth creation to all crypto assets.
And, that’s why this mechanism is murky, because decoupling itself isn’t so much a mechanism as it is a concept, one around which trading behavior might rally while FUD manifests speculation as to the direction BTC will take if we are indeed at the end of the bearish tail resulting from the 2017 plunge, or too soon in estimates of a market moving on to BTC trending.
But are you willing to take that risk; to watch BTC plunge while holding on to altcoins which have demonstrated fiat stickiness on BTC’s upswing in the hope of seeing the same, in reverse, should BTC do what many believe it will and implode, either bouncing back from a retest of supports or altogether finding a new floor beneath them?
So, where does altcoin stickiness to fiat currencies come from other than the growth in number and robust trading of pairings? Is it a good thing, or a bad thing; a necessary thing, or something we can ignore? And however ‘stickiness’ is accomplished, if it can or should be, will maintaining altcoin valuation stability during BTC swings serve a purpose which runs contrary to the expectations believers have for cryptocurrency, in general, or is the ability to spend with some modicum of stability anytime and the implied market stability this represents more important to the continued health of exchanges overall?
As questions go, these are the tip of the iceberg, and it’s doubtful the iceberg will melt all too soon. If market cap growth is to keep pace as the market matures, a new class of investors will likely look to spending stability in at least several assets before taking the plunge. It’s that, or crypto players who collate real world assets with crypto assets, like real estate, will change the market and take their creation into a retirement where they don’t have to look at the screen coaching along a menagerie of trading bots. If it really were about redistribution of and access to wealth, however, that may be the very kind of decoupling we’ve been looking for crypto to create all along.