I feel that this is a question that many people have discussed recently - is macro or micro important?
In terms of my personal work experience and trading experience, both are important. This friend actually provided a good example of argumentation. I will also throw out a brick to answer my personal thoughts.
[1. "Does it mean that the US fiscal policy and macro liquidity factors actually have little impact on BTC?"]
Generally, financial institutions have to go through 4 types of evaluations to screen investment targets. If it is changed to the cryptocurrency circle, it is:
Step 1: Macro (interest rate hike cycle or interest rate cut cycle, liquidity, etc.)
Step 2: Meso (screening sectors with net capital inflow)
Step 3: Micro (do due diligence on projects, consider token economics, market supply and demand relationship, volume and price performance, on-chain activity, high TVL, etc.)
Step 4: Risk management (stop loss and stop profit, cost-effectiveness) Risk control personnel have veto power. Risk control that cannot cover the bottom is actually no different from gambling.
If macro liquidity has no impact, then when the supply of BTC is halved and the demand remains unchanged, the price of BTC should rise immediately. But none of the four halvings in history has changed like this. This shows that in addition to the micro supply and demand relationship, there are other factors that affect the price.
ETF and BTC halving actually change the supply and demand relationship at the micro level. When there is no major change in the macro and meso levels, this change in the micro relationship can of course play a leading role.
[2. Logic first or data first]
"Can we draw a conclusion that the main factors that dominate the BTC market price at present are the inflow of ETF funds (accounting for about 30% of the weight) and the increase in liquidity of stablecoins (accounting for about 70% of the weight)?"
I think this conclusion cannot be easily made for the following reasons:
"The inflow of ETF funds" and "the increase in the issuance of stablecoins" are because these users believe that interest rates will be cut in the future? We can observe that in the days when the Federal Reserve released its dovish stance, there was a net inflow of ETF funds, so it cannot be ruled out that the reason behind this data is actually macro factors (that is, these users think that interest rates will be cut, so they rush to deposit funds). However, it is not known how many users with net inflows are due to macro factors.
This is actually a question of which comes first, the chicken or the egg, and different people have different opinions.But most of the institutions I personally contacted are logic first + data verification.
[3. Is macro important or micro important]
Being able to learn the Golden Bell Cover does not mean that you cannot learn the Eighteen Dragon Palms, or you can only learn 30% of the Golden Bell Cover + 70% of the Eighteen Dragon Palms. A good trading opportunity must be a transaction that is confirmed to be feasible by macro + meso + micro + risk control.
If only the micro is bullish and the macro cannot provide liquidity support, then this is actually a relatively low-ceiling trading opportunity; the same is true for trading opportunities with poor micro but good macro, even in the bull market of 2021, there are a lot of falling altcoins.
Conclusion: The importance of the macro does not mean that the micro is not important, and vice versa. You can see what the main contradiction is in trading at this stage, and focus on that aspect when it is the main contradiction in the risk asset market. Good researchers/traders do not only learn one set of skills.
