Timothy Peterson of Cane Island Alternative Advisors has said that Bitcoin’s historic peak of nearly $20,000 in December 2017 was „false.
In a June 11 tweet, Peterson said it took seven years for people to accept that Bitcoin was manipulated in 2013, referring to a recent Japanese court ruling upholding data manipulation charges against Mt. Gox’s former CEO, Mark Karpeles.
He then asked, „How long before people understand that $BTC was manipulated again in 2017 and 2019,“ before closing the session, claiming that the historical peak of $20,000 was „false.
A Japanese judge upholds the charges against Mark Karpeles of Mt. Gox
So, we all had a mass hallucination?
Peterson is not promoting a half-baked conspiracy theory that says the historical peak of Bitcoin, or ATH, never happened, simply that it probably happened because of manipulation.
When asked „What defines a ‚real‘ ATH in [his] mind,“ he replied that it was not in his mind but in his mathematics. He went on to say that a historical peak was legitimate:
„Only if it is compatible with the fundamentals as measured by the active addresses, the hash rate and the [transaction] counts. Otherwise, the price is not sustainable.
The price of Bitcoin will reach 75 thousand dollars „in a matter of weeks“? Recovery repeats 700% upward trend in 2013
A price that differs substantially from the fundamentals was probably caused by price manipulation, he concluded.
The real prediction is much bigger
Peterson defended the recent comments he had made when comparing Immediate Bitcoin current price movements to those just before the 2013 upward trend. A proportional trend today would bring the price of BTC to USD 75,000 in weeks.
Bitcoin’s realized capitalization reaches a record $106 billion as „fear“ returns to a BTC index
However, Peterson refuted claims that he had predicted such an increase. Instead, he claimed to have simply posed the hypothetical question: „Will history repeat itself?“
Peterson recently predicted that the price of Bitcoin will rise to $1 million by 2027, based on an increasing number of organic users. He claims that this figure is purely derived from mathematics, so it would presumably count as a legitimate historical peak by his own definition.