>There is speculation that Mt. Gox had been fractional for at least 6 months, and that Karpeles tried to buy back his losses and wound up igniting the $100-to-$

>There is speculation that Mt. Gox had been fractional for at least 6 months, and that Karpeles tried to buy back his losses and wound up igniting the $100-to-$1200 This is one of those moments when I feel like I'm missing something obvious (or a key piece of info), but wouldn't the fact that Mt Gox had gone fractional mean that they had created a lot of artificial supply that should have put downward pressure on the price? Further, wouldn't that pressure be somewhat proportional to the upward pressure he created with the buy activity, given that he was trying to make those fractions whole again? Edit: It just seems that there had to be some outside demand that subsequently dried up. Otherwise, we would expect to see at least a gradual, steady decline in price as he created more and more artificial supply. I suppose that could have then been folllwed by the dramatic rise if he was in too big a hurry in his recovery buying, but again, there seems to be some actual demand that went missing at some point.