I'd bet that large holders of gold sell small amounts all the time without the market going nuts and kicking off volatility swings. But I could be wrong.
It's less the mechanism and the implication that people imply by following whales. Why should a store-of-value market react when someone sells a small amount regardless of their current holdings?
I agree with you but this is an apples to oranges (or perhaps apples to 747s) comparison. The top 1000 holders of gold don't have anywhere near 40% of the market. Not to mention that 40% of the market for BTC is only a few million coins.
Certainly, but most of us have limited choice about what investments to make -- same for any of the non-1000 that's participating in Bitcoin. It's not apples to 747s as far as their money goes.
Which means Bitcoin proponents should really save the store-of-value label for later on down the road when it looks and behaves more like a store-of-value.
> The top 1000 holders of gold
> don't have anywhere near 40%
> of the market.
You're right, they have a lot more than that. Total world gold reserves are around 30K tons. The US alone has 8K tons, Germany 3K, IMF 3K, Italy 2.5K etc.
So just the to 2 holders of Gold have almost 40% of the market, and the top 10 have 80%.
I guess you didn't read the article you posted as evidence. In that article it says all the gold ever mined is 187,200 tons. Percentage of reserves != percentage of gold market. That would have the USA at ~5% and that is a country of 300+ million people. This is a lot different than 1000 individuals.
