2025-12-24 02:24:25

An interesting point has emerged - industry insider Anthony Pompliano recently stated in the media that if Bitcoin does not experience that kind of exciting crazy pump by the end of the year, it might actually help everyone.

How to put it? His logic is as follows: looking at the current level of volatility, if Bitcoin can still experience a crash of 70% or 80% when the volatility has already significantly decreased, that would indeed be very strange.

Many people are still sighing and feeling a bit upset that they haven't reached the $250,000 target set at the beginning of the year. However, Pompliano believes that this short-term disappointment actually obscures something more important—the long-term performance of Bitcoin is incredibly strong. Doubling in two years, nearly 300% growth in three years, and consistently compounding growth; this is truly a "monster-level" performance in the financial markets.

He also mentioned a detail that is easily overlooked: the degree of decline in volatility during this cycle is actually quite large. We did not see the "crazy peak" that everyone originally expected at the end of Q3 or the beginning of Q4, nor did we see a crash wave as high as 80%. This relatively stable pace is, to some extent, actually paving the way for what comes next.

BTC-0.55%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

5 Likes

Reward
5
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

AirdropHunterWang

· 14h ago

Hmm... I need to think about this logic, low volatility is actually a good thing? It feels like making excuses for myself. Speaking of which, the long-term gains are indeed impressive, but not seeing a rise in my hands right now is really uncomfortable, no matter how I comfort myself, it’s useless. Still not reaching 250,000 and you dare to boast? Looking at this price level makes me feel uneasy. Wait, does he mean steady rise is more valuable than big pump? There’s some truth to that, but I just want to make money right now. Low volatility means no big dump? I always feel like this is the calm before the black swan. But thinking about it carefully, 300% in three years is indeed outrageous, why didn’t I catch this train?

View OriginalReply0

PancakeFlippa

· 16h ago

Hmm... Pomp makes a good point, lower volatility actually means more stability, but I'm still a bit disappointed that I didn't reach 250,000. To be honest, long-term compound interest is indeed powerful, but who doesn't want to see an explosion right now? Pomp is telling us a story again, low volatility is good? Then why am I still losing? 300% in three years sounds great, but I just want that crazy pump from this year, you know? Smooth sailing? Why does it feel more like making excuses for not rising... Doubling in two years is a fact, but unfortunately, I haven't doubled, maybe I'm just unlucky. That being said, not experiencing an 80% big dump is indeed a gain. These days listening to industry insiders talk about long-term returns, I’m really fed up, who doesn't want to get rich in the short term? Decrease in volatility = institutions are building positions? So we retail investors are just waiting to catch a falling knife, right?

View OriginalReply0

EntryPositionAnalyst

· 16h ago

Well, how should I put it? This logic sounds okay at first, but I feel there's a bit of self-comfort in it. Not reaching 250,000 is just not reaching it. Going around in circles saying "helping a lot" only makes everyone feel frustrated. But on the other hand, it's true that not experiencing that 80% plummet is still lucky for long-term holders... Pomp's rhetoric is just a way to boost his own morale, right? Haha. Hearing that it has risen 300% in three years sounds great, but everyone knows the actual returns now. If it doesn't reach 250,000, don't talk about "monster-level"; we're all adults here. It is relatively stable, true, but it might just be a period of energy accumulation. Don't be too optimistic.

View OriginalReply0

MEVictim

· 16h ago

This is true stability, much more practical than that illusory $250,000. Wait, so does he mean that low volatility is actually a good thing? I need to change my mindset about chasing the price. Long-term compound interest is the way to go; it's really meaningless to get caught up in short-term price fluctuations. As long as we pass through the cycle smoothly, we can build strength for the next wave, I can buy into this logic. However, to be fair, the lack of a wild pump does take away some excitement. Actually, thinking about it, high volatility is indeed the source of risk; the current pace is actually healthier. Doubling in two years and rising 300% in three years, in other assets, that would have been hyped up to the sky.

View OriginalReply0

JustAnotherWallet

· 16h ago

Old Pomp's argument sounds good, but to put it bluntly, it's just a way to help those who haven't reached 250,000 find a way out. Low volatility does not mean that things will be stable later; can you trust this logic? To put it nicely, it's called "protection and escort"; to put it harshly, it just means the market has leveled out. Let me wait and see if that wave at the beginning of the year can turn around. Three years at 300% is indeed impressive, but the problem is whether we are buying Spot or using leverage... Pomp can always turn unfavourable information into favourable information; I’m amazed. However, there's really no way to leverage compound interest. If you ask me, instead of being hung up on not reaching 250,000, it’s better to think about the price at this time next year. Those who are sighing now will regret it then. Is it better that there isn't a crazy pump? Uh... then what should I do with my wallet from the past six months?

View OriginalReply0