Any role beyond pure speculation is hotly contested.
Bitcoin and gold reached record highs on the same day
Bitcoin's twin peaks are seen as an indication that it may be gaining acceptance in mainstream finance and investment circles.
Gold has acted as a haven store of value for millennia
On March 6th, Bitcoin and gold reached record highs on the same day for different reasons. While gold has acted as a haven store of value for millennia, any role beyond pure speculation is hotly contested. On the other hand, Bitcoin's twin peaks are seen as an indication that it may be gaining acceptance in mainstream finance and investment circles.
Bitcoin's overnight pullback from record highs has normalized funding rates in the crypto perpetual futures market.
<br>Since then, annualized funding rates or the cost of holding leveraged bets in perpetual futures tied to the top 25 cryptocurrencies have reset to less than 20% down significantly from triple-digit figures observed a few days ago. In other words, the overheated perpetual futures market has cooled.
<br>The latest reading for most coins is below 20%. According to John Glover, chief investment officer at Ledn, the market could continue to deleverage in the coming weeks., potentially pushing bitcoin's price back to $40,000.
Accuracy
Bitcoin fell 10% to $59,700 after reaching a new lifetime high above $69,000. The correction led to the forced closure of $1 billion worth of leveraged perpetual futures bets across digital asset markets.
Funding rates surged above 100% early this week as bitcoin's strong bullish momentum saw investors jump in with both feet, using leveraged products to maximize gains. Exchanges use the funding rate mechanism to keep perpetuals prices aligned with spot prices. A positive funding rate indicates that perpetuals are trading at a premium to the spot price, indicating increased demand for bullish bets.
Glover said in an email.
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Bitcoin's overnight pullback from record highs has normalized funding rates in the crypto perpetual futures market. However, this statement is misleading as it implies that funding rates were previously abnormal or unnatural when they were actually at triple-digit figures observed a few days ago. Secondly, the author quotes John Glover stating that Bitcoin's price could potentially push back to $40,000 if the market continues to deleverage in the coming weeks. However, this statement is also misleading as it implies that Glover has insider knowledge or access to information about future market movements which he does not have.
The article claims that funding rates are now normalized after Bitcoin's overnight pullback from record highs. This claim is deceptive because funding rates were previously at triple-digit figures observed a few days ago, indicating overheating in the perpetual futures market.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the opinions of John Glover without providing any evidence or reasoning for his claims. Additionally, the author makes a false dilemma by stating that Bitcoin's overnight pullback from record highs has normalized funding rates in the crypto perpetual futures market when it is not clear what normalization means and how it relates to funding rates. The article also contains inflammatory rhetoric with phrases such as
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards the negative impact of Bitcoin's sharp pullback from $69K. The author uses language that depicts one side as extreme or unreasonable such as 'over-optimism', 'euphoria surrounding the recent rally in BTC prices', and 'people being over-leveraged with unrealistic expectations'. Additionally, the article quotes an observer who predicts a potential price drop to $40K. The author also uses language that implies Bitcoin's strong bullish momentum has slowed down which is not necessarily true as it could be just a temporary correction before another rally.
According to John Glover, chief investment officer at Ledn, the market could continue to deleverage in the coming weeks., potentially pushing bitcoin’s price back to $40,000.
Bitcoin’s overnight pullback from record highs has normalized funding rates in the crypto perpetual futures market.
Edited by Parikshit Mishra.
Funding rates surged above 100% early this week as bitcoin’s strong bullish momentum saw investors jump in with both feet, using leveraged products to maximize gains.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The article discusses the funding rates in the crypto perpetual futures market and how they have reset after Bitcoin's sharp pullback from $69K. The author is Omkar Godbole who has a financial tie to Ledn which is mentioned as having made leveraged bets on digital asset markets.
The article discusses the funding rates in the crypto perpetual futures market and how they have reset after Bitcoin's sharp pullback from $69K. The author is Omkar Godbole who has a financial tie to Ledn which is mentioned as having made leveraged bets on digital asset markets.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of Bitcoin and its funding rates in the crypto perpetual futures market. The article mentions that CoinDesk is one of the sources used for data analysis, which could lead to bias or favoritism towards CoinDesk's products.
$1 billion worth of leveraged perpetual futures bets across digital asset markets.
. The twin peaks for Bitcoin and gold mark the first simultaneous records for the two since Bitcoin emerged from the shadows more than a decade ago.
. Gold has acted as a haven store of value for millennia, while any Bitcoin role beyond pure speculation is hotly contested.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive because it implies that gold and Bitcoin are unrelated assets that have different drivers. However, the author does not provide any evidence or explanation for why this is the case. In fact, both gold and Bitcoin are often seen as alternatives to traditional currencies and investments in times of economic uncertainty or market volatility. The article also fails to acknowledge that Bitcoin's rise may be partly driven by institutional interest and adoption, which could indicate a growing appetite for risk among some investors. Additionally, the article does not mention any sources or quotes from experts who can provide more insight into the factors behind the price movements of both assets.
The twin peaks for the cryptocurrency and the precious metal mark the first simultaneous records for the two since Bitcoin emerged from the shadows more than a decade ago. Yet markedly different drivers are typically thought to move each asset — gold has acted as a haven store of value for millennia, while any Bitcoin role beyond pure speculation is hotly contested.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by stating that gold has acted as a haven store of value for millennia. This statement is not supported by evidence and assumes the truth without providing any reasoning or context.
Bias
(75%)
The article is biased towards the idea that gold and Bitcoin are different assets with different drivers. The author implies that gold has been a haven store of value for millennia while any role beyond pure speculation for Bitcoin is hotly contested.
]Record highs for Bitcoin and gold are sending mixed messages about the appetite for risk across global markets.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Richard Henderson has a conflict of interest on the topic of Bitcoin and gold as he is reporting for Bloomberg which owns CoinDesk, a cryptocurrency news site.
.
— gold has acted as a haven store of value for millennia, while any Bitcoin role beyond pure speculation is hotly contested.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Richard Henderson has a conflict of interest on the topic of Bitcoin and gold as he is reporting for Bloomberg which covers both cryptocurrency and precious metal markets.
.
— gold has acted as a haven store of value for millennia, while any Bitcoin role beyond pure speculation is hotly contested.
BTC/USD clawed back more than half of its March 5 losses
$1.17 billion in cross-crypto liquidations occurred during the correction
Funding rates across exchanges saw a modest reset from unsustainable levels
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title claims that Bitcoin has experienced a $15% price crash when it only dropped by around $20%. Secondly, the author uses sensationalist language such as 'wild volatility' and 'whales were lying in wait for late longs on over-leveraged markets', which is misleading. Thirdly, the article quotes Hodlonaut stating that there are more people wanting to own Bitcoin after this flush, but it does not provide any evidence or context to support this claim.
The author uses sensationalist language such as 'wild volatility' and 'whales were lying in wait for late longs on over-leveraged markets', which is misleading.
'There aren’t less people wanting to own bitcoin after this flush,' popular Bitcoin personality Hodlonaut wrote in part of commentary on X. This statement is not supported by any evidence or context.
The title claims a $15% price crash when Bitcoin only dropped by around $20%.
Fallacies
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(75%)
The article contains multiple examples of bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes and demonizes those who disagree with the bullish outlook on Bitcoin's price. For example, he refers to them as 'whales' and says they are lying in wait for late longs on over-leveraged markets. This is a clear attempt to paint these individuals as nefarious actors rather than simply investors making their own decisions based on market conditions.
The author uses language that dehumanizes and demonizes those who disagree with the bullish outlook on Bitcoin's price.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
William Suberg has a conflict of interest on the topics Bitcoin price and BTC/USD 1-hour chart as he is an author for Cointelegraph Markets Pro which provides trading tools for cryptocurrencies including Bitcoin.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
William Suberg has a conflict of interest on the topics of Bitcoin price, whales, liquidations and funding rates as he is an author for Cointelegraph Markets Pro which provides trading data and analysis. He also mentions TradingView in his article.
Funding rates are mentioned as a factor to consider when making trades with BTC/USD 1-hour chart analysis.
The article discusses the impact of whales on Bitcoin's price
The article talks about liquidation events affecting Bitcoin traders
/arc-photo-coindesk/arc2-prod/public/LXF2COBSKBCNHNRE3WTK2BZ7GE.png)
