## Double Standards in the Crypto Market: How Bitcoin Criticism Became a Marketing Tool

Recently, sharp declines in asset markets — from silver to cryptocurrencies — reveal an interesting pattern: the same market mechanics receive completely opposite evaluations depending on which asset is involved.

### Silver fell by 14%, Bitcoin dropped by 30% — why are the conclusions so different?

When silver unexpectedly plummeted from $84 to $72 within an hour (a 14% drop) due to increased margin requirements on CME, experts immediately began talking about it as a buying opportunity. Margin calls triggered leveraged positions, forced liquidations wiped out billions of dollars — and this was seen as a normal market correction.

However, when Bitcoin experienced a similar 30% correction from its all-time highs through the same mechanisms (leverage, liquidations, technical sell-offs), the conclusion was radically different. Instead of discussing potential, accusations of "fraud" and predictions of "devaluation to zero" were voiced.

This contrast is similar to the legend of tulip prices during the 17th-century bubble — market normalcy for one asset and proof of catastrophe for another. Such perception raises a logical question: is this an objective analysis or a systematic bias?

### History of Criticism: from $5 to $93K

Financial expert Shanaka Perera decided to compile a list of accusations previously made against Bitcoin by influential critics. This chronology reveals an interesting pattern:

- At $5 — accusations of "fraud"
- At $1,000 — comparison to "tulip mania"
- At $3,800 — "too expensive to buy"
- At $90,000 — again "fraud" and guaranteed uselessness

As of January 2026, Bitcoin trades at around $93.03K. Despite these years-long predictions of collapse, the asset continues to be at the center of the global discussion on the value and potential of digital assets.

### Behind the scenes: when criticism becomes marketing

Perera’s most acute observation concerned not the criticism itself, but who stands behind it. It turned out that SchiffGold (a company of a critic) accepts Bitcoin as payment, the critic’s son owns Bitcoin, and he himself regularly appears at crypto conferences. Meanwhile, his anti-Bitcoin posts receive far more engagement and citations than his comments about gold.

This observation led to the conclusion: constant criticism of Bitcoin may be part of a communication strategy that generates visibility and discussion far more than traditional precious metals analysis. In the world of content and social media, as is well known, any conversation is good conversation.

### Crypto Community’s Position

Online crypto market commentators supported this critique, noting that Bitcoin has become a key driver of visibility for certain commentators. One user expressed more emotionally: "Bitcoin is not the goal, it’s the engine. Constant criticism guarantees a flow of interactions from the community that ordinary gold analysis simply cannot generate."

Thus, the debate is not about whether to invest in Bitcoin, but whether the same standards are applied to different markets.

### Frequently Asked Questions

**What triggered the 14% drop in silver?**
The increase in margin requirements on CME triggered cascading forced liquidations in the silver market, causing a technical sell-off that wiped out billions of dollars in borrowed positions.

**Why did experts interpret the silver decline as a buying opportunity?**
Many market participants believe that sharp declines caused by mechanical factors (margin requirements, liquidations) are temporary corrections, after which the underlying asset should recover its value.

**How does this perception affect regulation?**
Such extreme market movements heighten regulators’ concerns about excessive leverage in derivatives markets, prompting increased risk controls.

**Does this conflict influence Bitcoin’s long-term development?**
As both assets remain volatile, the debate over whether to apply the same evaluation standards will likely continue. Future market corrections will test the consistency of investment principles.