Why can a $2 billion sell-off cause a big dump in BTC, while an $83 billion buy order cannot push it to the sky?

MarketWhisper
BTC-1,54%

The crypto community has recently been flooded with a seemingly “stupid yet very real” question: If a one-time dumping of 2 billion dollars worth of Bitcoin (BTC) could cause instant dumping, why has Michael Saylor and the ETF army continuously bought 83 billion dollars over the past year without being able to send the BTC price to the moon? This question was raised by Bitcoin influencer Crypto Tea on X (formerly Twitter), sparking heated discussions. Bitcoin analyst Plan C quickly provided an explanation - the answer lies not in the amount, but in the speed, execution method, and market structure.

Speed Determines Impact: Piano Dropping vs. Slow Boiling Water

The core idea of Plan C is very simple:

A single massive dumping (e.g., 2 billion dollars) = instant clearing of the order book, price plummets sharply, like a piano falling from the tenth floor.

Long-term phased buying (e.g., $83 billion a year) = algorithmic diversified ordering, integrating market liquidity, avoiding rapid price spikes.

In other words, prices react most strongly to “marginal trading” rather than responding linearly to “annual totals.”

ETF and Institutions' “Invisible Buying” Strategy

In 2025, the allocation of BTC by ETFs and institutional investors is highly decentralized:

Exchange + Over-the-Counter (OTC) Dual Channel Execution

Algorithmic ordering: Automatically split large orders to reduce market impact.

Liquidity Optimization: Enter during high trading volume periods to avoid pushing up prices.

This kind of “slow build-up” buying is more about stabilizing holding costs rather than creating a short-term price surge.

Paper Bitcoin: Potential Invisible Dilution

Crypto Tea further inquired: “What about paper Bitcoin (Paper BTC)?”

Plan C acknowledges that there is an unknown X factor: if there is a large circulation of IOUs or synthetic BTC (such as internal exchange certificates) in the market, the reported “buying volume” may just be on-paper figures and may not actually remove real BTC from the market. This would dilute the true buying pressure, making the price response much more subdued.

Why does dumping more easily trigger panic?

Concentrated and sudden: dumping usually occurs within a short period of time, directly breaking through multiple support levels.

Liquidity vacuum: Especially during weekends or periods of low trading activity, buy orders are insufficient to absorb selling pressure.

Panic chain reaction: triggering stop-losses and leveraged liquidations, amplifying the decline.

In contrast, if the buying pressure is too concentrated, it will instead be “absorbed by sell orders” from sellers, creating price resistance.

Conclusion: Scale is not the only variable

The trend of BTC prices depends not only on the scale of capital but also on:

Trading Rhythm (One-time vs. Long-term Installments)

Execution Methods (Market Order vs. Algorithmic Order)

Market Structure (Real BTC vs. Paper BTC)

Liquidity environment (peak times vs. off-peak times)

So, the next time you see news like “$2 billion dumping triggered a crash,” don't rush to simply compare it with “$83 billion buy orders can't move the market”—because one is a sudden shock, while the other is a slow boil, and the effects are naturally worlds apart.

View Original
Disclaimer: The information on this page may come from third parties and does not represent the views or opinions of Gate. The content displayed on this page is for reference only and does not constitute any financial, investment, or legal advice. Gate does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information and shall not be liable for any losses arising from the use of this information. Virtual asset investments carry high risks and are subject to significant price volatility. You may lose all of your invested principal. Please fully understand the relevant risks and make prudent decisions based on your own financial situation and risk tolerance. For details, please refer to Disclaimer.
Comment
0/400
No comments