ราคา neversolNEVER

A debate recently unfolded in the crypto community over the differences in how XRP and Bitcoin are promoted. An XRP supporter pointed out that Ripple executives—including CEO Brad Garlinghouse and CTO David Schwartz—have never actively encouraged people to buy XRP. This was contrasted with MicroStrategy’s Michael Saylor, who consistently advocates for Bitcoin. The supporter implied that assets requiring direct promotion might have underlying weaknesses, sparking responses from the community. Crypto commentator CryptoApostle responded by highlighting the difference in supply between Bitcoin’s 21 million coins and XRP’s 100 billion. He suggested that Bitcoin’s scarcity makes it more necessary to “point people in the right direction,” implying that XRP does not face the same limitations. However, Ripple’s David Schwartz challenged this perspective, arguing that supply comparisons between XRP and Bitcoin are often misleading. Related: Ripple CTO Challenges Bitcoin Supply Scarcity Claims in Heated Debate Specifically, Schwartz emphasized that measuring crypto assets in “full coins” without considering market cap or divisibility leads to misinformation. He compared it to measuring distances in inches versus miles, saying such comparisons distort the true value and utility of each asset. CryptoApostle maintained that people naturally compare whole coins rather than smaller units like satoshis or drops. He also pointed out that Ripple’s partnerships with banks indirectly market XRP, even if executives do not explicitly promote buying it. Related: Ripple CTO Makes The Case For XRP Inclusion in Crypto Stockpile Meanwhile, Schwartz maintained that supply and price-per-coin are often misused in investment decisions. He noted that some investors believe XRP is a better buy simply because it appears cheaper per unit compared to Bitcoin—a narrative he believes is harmful. “You can’t compare the prices for ‘one coin’ for precisely the same reason you can’t compare the supplies measured in ‘number of coins,'” Schwartz stated , reinforcing the importance of accurate comparisons. Essentially, the discussion highlights the issue of evaluating crypto assets based on supply or unit price rather than fundamental value. It stresses that market participants must look beyond surface-level comparisons to make informed decisions. Disclaimer: The information presented in this article is for informational and educational purposes only. The article does not constitute financial advice or advice of any kind. Coin Edition is not responsible for any losses incurred as a result of the utilization of content, products, or services mentioned. Readers are advised to exercise caution before taking any action related to the company.

GM #Crypto crew☕️ New day, new possibilities! ✨ The market never sleeps, and neither do the opportunities. What’s your move — #HODL, trade, or stake?👀📊

The financial markets are full of analogies and historical patterns that analysts scrutinize closely to anticipate trends. In the crypto universe, the history of Bitcoin often serves as a compass for understanding the evolution of other major assets. Today, Ethereum appears to follow in the footsteps of BTC, mirroring the patterns of its third cycle. This parallel fuels speculation: if history repeats itself, ETH could soon cross a decisive threshold. The recent activity of large portfolios has highlighted a marked opposition between different market players. On one side, major investors, particularly via the Binance and Coinbase platforms, have acquired $12.98 million worth of Ethereum , confirming a pronounced bullish sentiment. Such accumulation during a consolidation period suggests these actors anticipate a price surge. In contrast, Golem Network has deployed a diametrically opposed strategy. By transferring 4,850 ETH, worth $13.26 million, to exchange platforms, this entity seems to have opted for a partial liquidation of its assets. A movement of this magnitude can have a significant impact on market dynamics, injecting selling pressure that tempers hopes for a rapid rise in ETH’s price. The divergent reactions of these institutional players illustrate the current duality of the market. On one hand, the optimism of buyers who bet on an imminent rally; on the other, the caution of sellers looking to take profits or reposition themselves amid economic uncertainties. Beyond market movements, technical analysts are observing a resemblance between the current evolution of Ethereum and Bitcoin’s third cycle. The latter had followed an extended consolidation phase, characterized by a converging triangle, before experiencing a spectacular surge. Today, Ethereum seems to be on a similar path. The same technical pattern appears on the charts, suggesting a potential bullish breakout. Some experts estimate that if this correlation holds, ETH could reach $6,000 in the short or medium term. However, such a scenario hinges on the assumption that the market will continue to reflect past cycles, a strategy not without risk. History never repeats itself identically. If Ethereum were to lose its key support or fail to break through certain resistances, the trend could reverse abruptly. That is why caution remains essential, as crypto markets are known for their extreme volatility and their ability to defy well-established forecasts. Investors find themselves facing a complex equation. On one hand, technical indicators and the accumulation of Ethereum by certain whales send strong bullish signals. On the other, liquidation movements and the fragility of a market still influenced by regulation and macroeconomics create uncertainties. If Ethereum continues its ascent in Bitcoin’s footsteps, breaking through $6,000 could serve as a catalyst for a new bullish momentum. Conversely, prolonged stagnation or an unexpected correction would highlight the limits of historical comparisons.

Customer Support will never ask you to release funds | Bitget Support Center https://www.bitgetapp.com/support/articles/12560603796019?appVersion=2.50.9&time=1740203426606&androidSdk=34&language=en_US&appTheme=standard

$HOOD - If you never share exits it's easy to take credit for any outcome. In reality you will almost never sell a top perfectly, and also always regret not taking profits eventually. Price now back down to initial TP level and now back to being in control looking for next entry