Recently, an analytical article on Bitcoin market manipulation sparked heated discussions on English social platforms. The piece, written by analyst Jacob King, quickly garnered over 800,000 views. He pointed out with great skepticism that the firmness of Bitcoin's price may not stem from real demand, but rather from a liquidity manipulation game led by key players like Tether and Bitfinex. The article bluntly states that this might be the largest bubble in financial history, ultimately ending in a crash.
🧩 Behind the scenes operators: Tether, Bitfinex, and internal circulation
Jacob pointed out that Tether issues billions of USDT stablecoins 'out of thin air' each year to buy Bitcoin and drive up market prices, while whether these USDT are truly backed by equivalent USD assets remains in doubt. He believes this practice essentially constitutes a 'reflexive Ponzi structure':
Issuing USDT;
Using USDT to drive up Bitcoin prices;
Selling Bitcoin for USD or gold, as a 'reserve' display;
Claiming to have ample assets externally, thus issuing more USDT;
Continuously repeating.
This model makes the market appear to have a continuous demand, but the actual participants are very few, with most buying coming from internal capital circulation.
🌍 'National-level adoption'? Uncertainty surrounds El Salvador's experiment
Jacob also questioned El Salvador's 'Bitcoinization'. He pointed out that blockchain data indicates that most of the Bitcoin held by the Salvadoran government was not acquired through public purchases but came directly from Bitfinex and Tether. This makes the so-called 'national-level adoption' appear more like a carefully designed marketing ploy rather than a genuine policy choice.
At the same time, he claimed that Tether drafted El Salvador's Bitcoin legislation, and its influence behind the scenes far exceeds public perception. El Salvador's President Bukele is accused of providing political cover for this plan in exchange for international exposure and funding.
It is claimed that the Bitcoin wallet Chivo, launched by the Salvadoran government, is nearing 'de facto bankruptcy', with usage rates plummeting by nearly 99%, and the related experiment is basically over.
💰 Jack Mallers and Michael Saylor's 'leverage game'
The article also names several well-known figures in the industry.
Jack Mallers (founder of Strike) was pointed out that a large amount of Bitcoin held by his latest project, Twenty One Capital, comes directly from Tether's reserve funds, forming a so-called 'self-buying and self-selling' market cycle.
Michael Saylor (founder of MicroStrategy) is seen as using high leverage to repeatedly buy Bitcoin, creating the illusion that 'institutions are optimistic', while actually participating in reflexive financial operations.
The author points out that Saylor's strategy is essentially:
Financing → Buying Bitcoin → Increasing market value → Refinancing → Repeating operations
Once this cycle's financing channels are restricted or asset prices decline, it could trigger systemic risks.
⚠️ Market alert: Institutions are retreating
Although 'institutional entry' was once one of the biggest narratives in the crypto market, recent data indicates a change. In early June, Bitcoin spot ETFs saw a net outflow of large funds for three consecutive days, with the latest single-day outflow reaching 267.5 million USD.
Since the fever pitch of 2021, institutional inflow has decreased by over 90%, showing a rapid cooling of interest. Meanwhile, the SEC's attitude towards new ETF approvals has become stricter, reflecting regulatory agencies' deepening caution towards the crypto market.
🎯 Core risk: The 'mutual endorsement' of Tether and Bitcoin
The core point of the article is: the financial structure between Tether and Bitcoin resembles a 'house of cards' that 'borrows strength' from each other.
Bitcoin prices are supported by Tether's buying;
While Tether's stability relies on its Bitcoin reserves.
Once regulation strengthens, the funding chain breaks, or market confidence wavers, this structure could instantly go out of control, causing a systemic collapse similar to the Mt. Gox or Lehman events.
📌 Summary
While Jacob's viewpoint may contain exaggerated elements, it does not lack profound analysis of the systemic risks in the crypto industry. Beneath the seemingly prosperous market facade, is there an 'illusionary' liquidity support? Can regulators effectively identify and respond to new financial risks? These questions are worth deep reflection by every investor and policymaker.
Investment should be cautious, especially in a market filled with technological narratives and faith halos, where one must be wary of the 'invisible hand' stirring the pot.