I noticed an interesting debate in the crypto community about who is really to blame for Bitcoin not soaring higher. Everyone is shouting about Jane Street and manipulation, but Ari Paul — a guy with real market-making experience on Wall Street — directly says: that's not quite how it works.

Paul honestly analyzes the situation. Yes, big firms play in the system, but not the way people think. Market makers can move the price within the day, trigger stop-losses, create short-term volatility. But this happens over minutes or hours, then the price returns. It’s manipulation, but on a micro level, not a structural suppression of the price for months.

What actually happened with Bitcoin? According to Paul, the answer is simpler: large holders sold tens of thousands of coins, and demand was insufficient. This aligns with James Check’s analysis, a well-known on-chain analyst, who also pointed to the spot market as the main factor.

Paul doesn’t deny that manipulation exists — it’s literally part of what large firms do. But it’s not the main explanation for the price trajectory. When people see that an asset isn’t growing and immediately shout about a conspiracy — that’s cognitive dissonance. It’s easier to find an enemy than to admit that the market simply works this way.

There are rare exceptions when long-term manipulation is possible, but it’s risky and rarely profitable. In 99% of cases, it’s just the dynamics of supply and demand.

New context: recently, the Terraform Labs liquidation administrator filed a lawsuit against Jane Street, accusing them of insider trading and links to Terra’s collapse. The company denies the allegations. At the time of this debate, BTC was trading around 66K.

Conclusion: yes, large market makers influence liquidity and intraday flows, but that’s far from being the reason for the absence of 150K Bitcoin. Sometimes, the market just says no.