What Happens When the Market Is Forced to Take Litecoin Seriously?

Added: 2026-06-02

[00:00:00]What happens when the market is forced to take Litecoin seriously? In the previous video, we discussed why Litecoin has been ignored and why it can't be taken seriously until price moves. And this video is going to answer the question as to what it will look like and what happens when price behavior and attention force the market to look at Litecoin. The problem that Litecoin must overcome is very difficult. We've talked about before how Litecoin competes directly with Bitcoin for monetary market share and we have evidence of migration.

[00:00:32]But the most difficult task for it right now in this speculative casino environment is competing with the dominant social frame that wants to frame BTC as the only store of value, the only money to be taken seriously and and to label Litecoin as dead, a clone or a useless, irrelevant altcoin. So the dominant social layer trained the market not to look even as evidence builds that contradicts the dominant narrative in the space. The market won't see it until price moves. Before we can answer what happens when the market is forced to take Litecoin seriously, we have to redefine the object correctly. Bitcoin and Litecoin are not reserve asset versus utility chain, gold versus payments colon. They're both proofof work monetary networks. They have slightly different parameters. They have very different social status, very different public narratives, but the same basic monetary value proposition with the same exact security design principles. They're proof of work, fixed issuance, no bank, no issuer, no trusted third party. It's permissionless settlement. So, if you define Bitcoin only by the ticker BTC, then Litecoin looks like something irrelevant, something separate. But if you divine Bitcoin by the machine underneath proofof work money without permission, then Litecoin becomes much harder to dismiss. And really what makes it harder to dismiss is durable monetary economic coordination. The next point is simple.

[00:01:57]I know it's repetitive, but it's worth saying again because it changes the whole framework for valuation. We know that it's economically provable that a single Bitcoin chain cannot clear unlimited settlement demand at low cost.

[00:02:10]Yes, I know Bitcoin's fixed supply is 21 million coins, but fixed supply is the least important side of the equation.

[00:02:17]Demand is most important and we know as demand increases for the sole reason Bitcoin exists, permissionless settlement, so too does the cost of using the network. And when settlement becomes expensive, users have to make a choice. This is a forced choice decision. They can pay more if they can afford it or if they think the security is worth the cost. They can temporarily use intermediaries or credit layers, but those may take away the value proposition or may become insolvent and not be able to pay. Or they can reroute to a second Bitcoin chain. That third option is the part that the market has not priced at all. Because if the value proposition is permissionless settlement and one proofof work chain is not enough to absorb all of the demand, the demand doesn't magically disappear behind the story.

[00:03:08]most of it looks for another route.

[00:03:10]That's where a second Bitcoin chain becomes relevant. And that process has been happening and been ongoing for almost a decade now. So, has this been happening? Yes, it's been ongoing for about a decade now. But I want to be careful because reading blockchain statistics is difficult. A spike in transactional activity isn't enough. It can be noise. It can be very low value.

[00:03:31]It can be just speculation, temporary, or it can be manipulated for a long period of time because it's cheap to use the chains and people want to pump their bags. So, I will create another video on what to anchor to when you're trying to determine whether this is real economic sustainable activity on the chain or not. Um, but for now, let's just focus on the real question, which is retention. So, does any of this trial during congestion periods on Bitcoin become retained behavior? Does the baseline rise after the stress event?

[00:04:01]Does the activity persist? Do wallets stay active? Does the market keep returning to the same second chain?

[00:04:08]Because one event can be dismissed, but repetition is much harder to dismiss.

[00:04:12]And so if the same pattern keeps appearing across multiple regimes with Litecoin becoming this second Bitcoin chain, growing its retained behavior, then the market is no longer looking at random noise. It's looking at a sustained mechanism, right? And this is actually what happened to Bitcoin in the first place, right? So, we're seeing a repetition of monetary coordination converging around a second Bitcoin chain, right? There are many objections to this idea because people don't like the way it actually works. They want it to all be on one chain. They think that, you know, multiple chains dilutes the value. But it really doesn't. These are open- source technologies. You can't prevent it from happening. It just means that your price expectations have to adjust. So, what's going to force the market to take Litecoin seriously? Well, it's just more of the same thing that's already ongoing, right? Continued migration from BTC, continued monetary growth, continued monetary activity, which will eventually force a relative price breakout and [music] a strain in the Bitcoin only narrative. As long as Litecoin usage remains quiet and price remains socially ignorable, the old labels will survive. People can keep saying dead coin, payments coin, nobody uses it. But under the assumption that permissionless markets matter and they grow, migration will continue and price will start moving hard enough that the market can no longer dismiss it. Then at that point, the contradiction becomes visible. And at that point, Litecoin is not just sitting under the wrong label.

[00:05:40]It's going to start breaking the entire category that the social layer currently uses to define Bitcoin. I want to zoom out here for a second and look at Litecoin through a broader mania framework. It's listed in my book and I think it's important because the sequence tends to repeat over and over again. Most mania happen around substitution of one thing or one technology for a new, cheaper, faster or better technology. The sequence is like this. Friction appears in the old thing.

[00:06:08]Usage migrates to the new thing.

[00:06:10]Assumptions break around the old thing being dominant. Price moves before the market has a clean explanation for it.

[00:06:16]Then language forms around the new thing. Speculation amplifies the price of the new thing and late [music] participants are forced in because waiting starts to feel way more expensive than not understanding what's going on. That's the order. Behavior happens first, price second, language last. And most people are looking at the social layer expecting them to understand what's going to happen. Not all mania are the same. Some are hype and just primarily story driven. And as story or hype bubble, language actually leads behavior. The story does all of the work. Price outruns reality.

[00:06:51]Identity forms around the story. And when coordination breaks, there's nothing durable underneath to catch it.

[00:06:56]But a migration mania is different. In that type of environment, behavior leads language. Something becomes too costly, too slow, too constrained, too unreliable, or too exposed. So users begin routing around the old system before the public has language for what is happening. Price eventually reveals the migration. Then language arrives late to explain. And so the test is not simply did price move. The test is what moved first. Was it just a story or is there actual durable behavior underneath? Which is why this trial and retention is so important that we discussed earlier.

[00:07:33]So let's run through a few historical examples and apply this framework to it.

[00:07:38]The late 1970s metals bull market is the failure case I used in the book which shows that a maniac can diagnose a real problem and still fail to become a durable migration. So the problem was real but the substitute didn't clear the same job at the same overall cost and that distinction will matter for Litecoin because price alone isn't enough. The alternative has to compete functionally. So step one friction appears for households in the late 1970s. The friction wasn't abstract. It was grocery bills, gas prices, cash in the bank buying less than it used to.

[00:08:13]The official story at the time said things were manageable, but the receipts disagreed. People didn't need a theory of monetary policy to fill the friction.

[00:08:22]They could feel that the old promise of stable money was weakening. So that's the first step in the mania sequence.

[00:08:28]Something in the incumbent system stops working cleanly. Step two is usage migrates. In this case, it was not daily settlement. It was savings behavior. So people began moving into what they thought was real money. So gold, silver, coins, bars, physical objects they could hold. And the migration was rational at the individual level. If the currency feels unstable, you look for something outside the currency. So the behavior moved in terms of savings before the public had a clean story for it. Step three, assumptions break. The old assumption was simple. Save dollars, trust the system, tomorrow look roughly like today. But the assumption started failing in people's daily lives. So when reassurance stops calming people, the story is already strained. The old map can be repeated for a while, but it no longer matches what people are directly experiencing. And that's when assumptions start breaking. Step four, price move. So gold and silver accelerated before everyone had a unified explanation. There was quite a bit of argument. The movement was first, then people went looking for the language. And that's the key point of the sequence. Price can move before a clean unified social consensus exists.

[00:09:35]That move creates need for explanation.

[00:09:38]So once the move becomes visible then language becomes sharable. So inflation, real money, hard assets, protect your savings. These phrases compress the anxiety into something people can repeat. And that's what language does in a mania. It turns a felt contradiction into a public sentence. Then speculation amplifies. Once the story becomes common conversation, capital rise for reasons beyond the original use case. People buy because other people are buying, co-workers talk about it, friends talk about it, coin shops have lines, the hedge becomes panic. So speculation did not create the original problem. It amplified the move after the problem became socially legible. And then the last stage is forced participation. Late buyers enter because staying out becomes psychologically intolerable. They're not they're not calmly building a model.

[00:10:24]They're buying relief. They can't tolerate watching their savings fall against the thing everyone is now calling real money. That's what forced participation feels like. The action feels sudden, but it's the end of a process that was building underneath long ago. But the important lesson in this example is that metals were a correct diagnosis of monetary distrust, but they failed to result in durable substitution around a new monetary object. So they were compelling hedges and a compelling story, but they didn't reach functional parody with fiat as daily monetary infrastructure.

[00:10:59]So as fiat retained overwhelming cost and convenience dominance, the price started to to fall and the repricing was not durable. And that's why this example matters. It warns us not to treat every price move as proof of durable monetary migration has to be able to compete on total all-in cost. Let's move on to the dot bubble. So step one, friction appears. the old tools started feeling slow. [music] So things like fax, cataloges, brochures, physical storefronts, paper workflows. Once email, websites, and online ordering existed, the old way started feeling more expensive than people had thought before. Right? The friction was not always a dramatic break. Sometimes it's just because a new tool makes the old route feel inefficient. Step two, usage migrates. So people actually began using the internet. Email did eventually replace facts. Websites did eventually replace brochures. E-commerce started replacing cataloges. That part was real.

[00:11:53]The market wasn't hallucinating the direction of travel. Behavior was migrating.

[00:11:58]Step three, assumptions break. So once real usage starts to appear and shows up as migration. The old assumptions around the previously dominant institution start feeling outdated. You have incumbent industries that are trying to protect their business with narratives and language, but usage is already showing the direction of least resistance. Step four, price moves. So, tech equities ran ahead of any stable valuation framework. Price responded not only to present demand, but to this imagined future. And the market began paying for the assumption that every internet company was a piece of the inevitable future. Some were, most weren't. That's the danger when price moves before valuation language matures.

[00:12:37]Step five, language forms. So the market got its sentences, new economy, own the future, old rules are obsolete. These phrases made the move legible and they also gave social safety to speculation.

[00:12:50]They gave investors a way to repeat the thesis without doing the work of separating durable infrastructure from speculative noise. Language simplified a real transition into tradable slogans.

[00:13:01]Step six, speculation amplifies. So people started having IPO calendars.

[00:13:06]Momentum became identity. People were no longer only investing in companies. They were buying participation in the future.

[00:13:12]And because the direction was partly true, the story could survive objections longer than a totally empty bubble. That is why halftruth stories are so powerful. They have enough reality underneath to keep recruiting belief.

[00:13:24]Step seven is forced participation. The last holdouts eventually buy because not only the future starts to feel humili humiliating socially and also expensive.

[00:13:33]If everyone around you is doubling money and telling you the world has changed, staying out begins to feel like a statement about your intelligence. So people buy relief. They buy to avoid exclusion to stop feeling late. That is what forced participation feels like.

[00:13:47]This example is important not because the internet was fake or that investors had the wrong direction. It was real.

[00:13:52]The migration was happening. The problem was timing and readiness. The market tries to recoordinate around inevitability before compute, bandwidth, storage, software tooling, reliability, and business models were mature enough.

[00:14:05]So, the market was right about direction and wrong about timing. That matters for Litecoin because it forces the right question. Not is this directionally interesting, but is the substitute ready enough? Is the infrastructure ready enough? Is the behavior real? How long how long do we have until we see expansion of permissionless monetary demand? and I will talk about that in the next video, but for now, these are the questions you should be asking as it's relevant to cryptocurrency markets today. Now, let's look at Bitcoin's early life cycle. [music] It's important for this video because Bitcoin itself didn't begin as a clean mainstream [music] narrative. So, we didn't have digital gold. That language came way later. Bitcoin began with behavioral migration. A small group of people used it because it could do something other money could not do for them at the time.

[00:14:52]>> [snorts] >> So step one, friction appears. For Bitcoin's earliest users, the friction was in legacy monetary rails. So banks, cards, permission payment systems, chargebacks, censorship, access limits.

[00:15:04]Certain users, especially the first ones, needed a way to move value that did not depend on the existing permission structure. That's why you see saw the rise of things like Silk Road.

[00:15:13]The old system did not fail everyone at once. It failed specific users first.

[00:15:19]That is how migration begins at the margin.

[00:15:22]Step three, assumptions break. Bitcoin challenged deep assumptions, right? That a monetary system requires a trusted institution. That settlement needs permission. But as Bitcoin kept functioning, that assumption weakened.

[00:15:34]It didn't weaken everywhere at once. It weakened for the people who actually used the system and saw that it worked.

[00:15:40]That's how behavior breaks assumptions before the public has language for it or agrees with it. Step four, price moves.

[00:15:46]So price began rising before one dominant mainstream narrative controlled the story. There was no single clean public frame yet. No ETF language, Treasury asset language, universal digital gold consensus. There was movement first, then attention, then explanation. Price forced people to ask what was happening. Then step five, language formed. Only after behavior and price forced attention did the language become sharable around censorship, resistance, hard money, digital gold.

[00:16:13]Each phrase made Bitcoin legible to a broader audience and each phrase compressed a difficult mechanism into a sentence people could repeat. Sometimes and specifically today, it's so far the metaphors have drifted so far from reality that they don't really describe the underlying structure anymore. It's not a criticism. That's how markets coordinate around new things. Language arrives to make prior behavior socially explainable. Step six, speculation amplifies. So once Bitcoin had this sharable language, the speculative capital arrived to align behind the story. And that's what we're seeing right now at the most extreme example, right? Institutional capital is aligning behind the digital gold story. People bought not only because they needed the function. Primarily they don't right now, but because they wanted exposure.

[00:16:58]They wanted the upside, the status to be early. And so the story became reflexive. Price validated the story.

[00:17:04]The story attracted capital. The story became more extreme. capital move price and you had this amplification loop.

[00:17:12]Step seven is forced participation. Late entrance eventually buy because not owning Bitcoin feels like being excluded from the future. They didn't have time to fully understand the system. They they they are buying relief from uncertainty. And then identity hardens around the asset. They're not no longer just holding Bitcoin. They are Bitcoiners. That identity layer is why Bitcoin's rallies have been so powerful.

[00:17:33]But it arrived late. It comes after behavior after price after language after repeated reinforcement.

[00:17:40]The Bitcoin lesson is simple like all the others. Behavior changes first, price comes second, language came third, identity comes after that. And that is the ordering people forget. It matters because the current Bitcoin social layer often acts as if the language was always the thing because previous or recent price moves have resulted from more capital aligning behind a dominant story. and they forget that belief shock was the thing that triggered the most dramatic repricing when nobody knew what was happening.

[00:18:12]So they think digital gold came first or at least that's the public's mental framework around it and as if the store of value label created the monetary reality but it's backwards.

[00:18:24]So the language has compressed a history behavior price and adoption.

[00:18:28]And it's important because if we're going to evaluate Litecoin honestly, we have to apply the same structure. Not does Litecoin already have the winning story, but is behavior moving before any public language exists. These three examples prove [music] three things that are important. First, a real problem isn't necessarily enough. Metals diagnosed monetary distress correctly, but failed as a modern settlement substitute.

[00:18:50]Second, a real direction isn't enough.

[00:18:53]Saw the future correctly, but priced it before the enabling stack was ready.

[00:18:57]Third, behavior can lead language. So, Bitcoin itself began with use at the margins, then price, then language, then identity. So, we have to be able to answer those three questions around Litecoin.

[00:19:08]It's not whether price can move or whether speculative interest can come in. It's whether the same structural test can can be met. Can we say yes on all these three questions that we now are aware of from these other examples, right? Is Lycoin a same category substitute? Yes. Is there migration?

[00:19:25]Yes, it's provable. But the hard part is understanding how large this permissionless monetary settlement can actually become. I'll answer that in the next video. It's in my book. But these are the questions people need to be thinking about, right? Because under those assumptions, then yes, it's highly likely that we will experience a repricing. So now, let's bring [music] it back to Litecoin where it sits today. I'm not asking us to accept the second Bitcoin as a slogan for speculative interest. I'm asking us to test the framework accurately. So, is there friction? Is there evidence of migration, retention?

[00:20:02]Is it large enough to eventual eventually force a price breakout, which we'll answer in the next video, and that will force a category update and eventual premium migration. So, my view currently is that Litecoin is somewhere between assumptions breaking and price moving without a narrative. We've already seen the behavioral migration.

[00:20:19]We've seen Litecoin survive. We've already seen the market return to it when settlement cost matters such that it's built uh order of magnitude lead over all the other direct competitors but the actual social layer has not been penetrated yet. So we're not in the language forms phase yet we're before that. We're in this uncomfortable space in between where public language stays loyal to the old story while behavior already has been loosening underneath.

[00:20:46]And there are three reasons why I say we're in that stage. Apology language, optionality, optionality, and fragility at the margin. So in the book, I define apology language as what happens when the dominant story starts defending the gap between what it claims and what reality is actually showing. The tone shifts from here's what it does to here's why you shouldn't expect it to do that. Metrics get redefined or dismissed. So speculative network effects get redefined as monetary network effects. Critique gets moralized. Skepticism becomes betrayal instead of inquiry. In the Litecoin context, this shows up when Bitcoin's original value proposition starts getting reframed away from use, settlement, or activity. You hear things like peer-to-peer cash isn't the point anymore, holding is the use, network activity doesn't matter, that metric is noisy, or you just don't understand Bitcoin. The important point is not that every defense is automatically wrong, but that language is working harder than it ever used to have to work. When a dominant system is obviously winning on function, it doesn't need this much explanation. The market speaks for itself. But when language steps in to cover a gap that reveals strain, assumptions are bending before the market is actually allowed or socially permitted to say so directly.

[00:21:57]Apology language isn't proof the incumbent failed. It's proof that the frame is [music] actually under strain.

[00:22:03]Because it's still expensive to admit that anything has changed, most people don't publicly announce the adjustment.

[00:22:08]They keep the old story while their behavior loosens.

[00:22:11]>> [music] >> I describe that as small workflow adjustments, diversification, new wallets, and just in case allocations for Litecoin. Option optionality means the market may not be for Litecoin.

[00:22:22]Optionality means the market isn't ready to say Litecoin matters, but users and infrastructure keep behaviors and infrastructure keep behaving as if Litecoin remains useful. People test the lower cost route. They use it during congestion. Wallets support it.

[00:22:36]Exchanges support it. Payment processors support it. some activity migrates and stays on Litecoin and then fragility at the margin. So, we have two Bitcoin chains that have totally different liquidity profiles. Inflection points aren't measured by mass exits or full reversal in the psyche. They only really need marginal reallocation. Small flows can matter more than people expect. When belief is uniform, positioning is crowded, and liquidity is so different between the two assets. That's the Litecoin setup. Bitcoin has an enormous social premium. Litecoin has almost no social premium. Bitcoin has speculative liquidity and institutional rec recognition. Litecoin has been sitting under a dead altcoin discount. So if Litecoin begins to outperform hard enough, the discomfort changes. The person who felt confident doing nothing suddenly feels like staying put is a decision. That is why price matters.

[00:23:26]Price will not start the rotation. It just exposes it. It feels like we've been in this phase forever because speculative demand has outweighed monetary demand by such an extreme margin. And that's why the dominant social frame has continued to survive despite the evidence to the contrary.

[00:23:40]But eventually all these narratives of deadcoin, [music] payments coin, silver will just disappear. Right? What needs to happen is price needs to move up enough for the social permission threshold to cross. And at that point when we start to see new search interest come for why is Litecoin going up or what is Litecoin, we'll enter what I call the noise phase. The noise phase, especially in this type of market environment that we're anticipating, will be very emotional because it's identity level. The incumbent voices will be the most uncomfortable by this.

[00:24:16]They will attempt to defend the old story. Traders will reduce the move to rotation as alt season, beta, whale pump, or temporary. Media will want to media wants the simplest story that can fit in a headline and be mass distributable. New voices rush to publish first, frame first, go viral first. And underneath all of that, the durable framework has to survive. And this will take quite a while, but it will be based on function constraint, settlement behavior, competitors, proof of work, settlement markets, and how they'll develop into the future. That's where clarity eventually comes from.

[00:24:50]It's not from the loudest voice, but from the explanation that will keep working across time.

[00:24:56]Most explanations will ride the move for a week and disappear. Right? These things like alt season or whale pump, old coin rotation, digital silver is back. They may not be totally false, but they're thin, right? It's it's like the headlines you read where you see a simple clean story where Michael Sailor buys $2 billion of Bitcoin, that's why it pumped, right? Things like that. They can describe a price move. They can't carry a reclassification. And a durable story is much different what happens across time and stress.

[00:25:27]This is where Litecoin's dramatically different from all the other crypto narratives. The market's used to tech novelty, a new chain, a new app, token feature, or new narrative. That's familiar. That does not threaten the deepest Bitcoin story. Litecoin's different because Litecoin is not trying to be a new tech tech novelty. It's the same exact value proposition. It's sitting inside the same proofof work monetary. It's sitting inside the same proofof work monetary category. So if Litecoin breaks out because the market is beginning to reclassify it, the shock is not just technological, it's psychological. It is a belief shock around the definitions people were trained to use and inherited from above.

[00:26:06]So it'll force the market to ask what is Bitcoin? What is Litecoin? What is proofof work money? How do these networks scale? Does store value premium require settlement reality, which currently Bitcoin says it doesn't? Does one chain actually absorb all future proofof work monetary demand? No. Those are not altcoin questions. Those are category questions. And that's why I believe it can be very extreme, right?

[00:26:30]It's a lot different from a memecoin pump because it doesn't threaten Bitcoin's role. An AI token pumping doesn't threaten Bitcoin's role. A VC chain pumping doesn't do it either.

[00:26:41]Those all can be dismissed as speculation outside the core monetary category. But Litecoin rallying inside the same proofof work money category is different. It forces direct comparison.

[00:26:51]It asked whether the second chain is real. It asked whether network effects were more conditional than the market believed and were told to believe. It asked whether the Bitcoin only story contained a monopoly assumption the market never actually would test. That is why the reaction would not be calm.

[00:27:07]Replacement risk feels different from hype. Hype's easy to dismiss. Same category competition feels like encroachment. And that's why the event matters. It's not because Bitcoin disappears or because Litecoin is better. It's not the argument. The argument is that Bitcoin store value premium contains a monopoly assumption about the future. That the market has priced Bitcoin as if it captures the entirety of the future of proofof work permissionless settlement alone. But if Litecoin becomes legible as a second chain, the second Bitcoin chain, then the monopoly component of that premium gets questioned. The market has to ask, is Bitcoin the only proof of work money that matters? or is Bitcoin just the first chain and styi a broader proofof work settlement market that difference changes future valuation assumptions and if those assumptions change then you'll see premium migration right store of value premium that was held all by BTC will migrate to the second Bitcoin chain and that is why people will get mad the threat is not just financial it's identity level we talked about this before but if someone built their entire audience status business and self-concept around one chain certainty then a second proofof work chain pain does not feel like a neutral update.

[00:28:17]It's going to feel like replacement risk. It's going to ruin the credibility of all the most dominant voices in the space that sold popularity. The people that said, "I understood money. I saw this first. I chose the only one. And I sold certainty. The reaction becomes emotional. The debate isn't about Litecoin." It's about whether the old identity map still works. And once identity is involved, the first honest sentence can cost a lot more than money.

[00:28:42]So, now that we've walked through the Mania sequence, applied the framework historically and to the present day, discussed where Litecoin is currently and what it will feel like once price starts moving if it is aggressive. Let's talk about how intense the mania can potentially become. So, why can this repricing become violent? In the book, I describe mania intensity as multiplicative. So, it's incumbent scale divided by challenger capacity multiplied by migration benefit divided by migration cost. And what I mean by that is a large scale mismatch creates sensitivity and a high benefit to cost ratio of migration supplies the motive force. When both ratios are high, the system is not going to repric this gently. It's going to recoordinate abruptly. It doesn't guarantee the move.

[00:29:28]But it tells you why if the move happens can become quite extreme.

[00:29:32]And the most important point is this market is not pricing present reality.

[00:29:36]It's pricing future expectations. So a dramatic shift in future assumptions and these future expectations vary so dramatically if you assume a high total addressable market for permissionless monetary networks then a realization around the monetization limit of a single chain can lead to a dramatic repricing of a second chain. So the summary is this bitcoin and litecoin are both proofof work monetary chains. They have the exact same value proposition and they function almost identically.

[00:30:04]One chain cannot clear unlimited lowcost settlement demand. migration has already appeared and if that continues the old category will strain. A fast price move makes the thesis finally speakable.

[00:30:16]Noise will follow, defense will follow, high emotions will follow because of status being challenged, but durable stories will survive. And if the category is forced to update, the premium will migrate as speculators align with the most likely future. The key change is future valuation expectations, not necessarily dramatic permissionless settlement, growth, demand. Right? This is what people miss.

[00:30:42]The market isn't saying, "What is Litecoin worth today?" It's asking, "What future was I pricing yesterday?

[00:31:00][music]