This story lacks critical thinking. The price couldn't be anything other than volatile right now for the simple reason that it is bigger than a breadbox, but sm

This story lacks critical thinking. The price couldn't be anything other than volatile right now for the simple reason that it is bigger than a breadbox, but smaller than a house: It has two basic attractors, one is $0—extinction. If you take the story at face-value, I think you're supposed to think this is the only one. The other one is more dynamic, fitting the demand of supplying commerce with enough monetary units to do business, which if successful should roughly match the population of the earth eventually. 20-some-odd million units for all of us. How much does it have to be worth? Much more than a hundred dollars. So the rise in value might be a bad thing, it could be a simple expression of unbounded volatility. Or it could be a perfectly natural thing, seeking the greater attractor—the one of persistence over extinction. Proximity to that attractor diminishes volatility. It's important to appreciate that the whole mess could come down, and it's important to know how that might come about and what the signs of trouble are. But asserting it is going to eventually fall under the weight of these weaknesses (without being able to show how or even what in particular it will succumb to) for anything other than hypothetical purposes is a mistake. I've seen a lot of articles framing it like that way lately, and no support for it. Equating sharp upward trends with dangerous volatility is just confusing the signs of natural, healthy progression with the signs of trouble. What's needed is a more sophisticated way of thinking about it. Solid arguments for why a given amount in the right direction in a given period of time is a sign of trouble rather than progress toward the greater attractor. Without these you're just making up stories. But in all things money the trend is: it's better to lie than admit you don't know.