Bitcoin’s volatility now less than that of Nasdaq 100 companies

We all remember when Bitcoin was labeled as "way too volatile" to be taken seriously back in the day. But now, here's the twist: Bitcoin's realized volatility is actually lower than most stocks in the Nasdaq-100. It’s kinda wild to think that this asset, which was once seen as super risky, is now more stable in price compared to some of the biggest tech players in the market. Is this a sign that the market's maturing or just a quiet moment before things get crazy again?

Because BTC becomes bigger and bigger in its cap - to move it becomes a feat in of itself. Don't worry much about it and see BTC adoption push the volatility even lower.

Not when certain firms are buying massive amounts of Bitcoins that are in circulations and hording them for their “clients” in the name of ETFs. Do you really think that is adoption? I personally don't think so. And let's wait for the bear market to come in to play. Maybe that is when we will really know whether Bitcoin lost its volatility or not, but as far as I know, the volatility might still be there. How many NASDAQ firms for example increased in price by about 7 times in 2 and a half years?

Wow this is so epic! I love this. It truly is ironic and kind of funny actually,  its like bitcoins bird to Wallstreet just as its forced practically to embrace it. If you can't beat em join em is the saying, and now everyone is all in on Bitcoin. I think we will see the price soar here in the coming months but that's just my gut feeling.

Why we have to compare Bitcoin with Nasdaq in the first place? 2% change is nothing. If they wanna compare Bitcoin with Nasdaq, I will show it: Last 24 hours Bitcoin -1.23% Nasdaq +0,72% Last month Bitcoin +4,67% Nasdaq +6,89% Last six months Bitcoin +36,96% Nasdaq +27,92% Last year Bitcoin +27,44% Nasdaq +17,38% Only daily traders cares about this change, are most people a daily trader? I really doubt. Isn't most people are investors? Bitcoin definitely win, even in six and twelve months, Bitcoin still win, I didn't even compare the 4 years return.

I've observed the volatility for the past 6 months and I think i come to the same conclusion. People keep yapping about how bitcoin is high risk high volatility but never really take sometime to compare it to other asset. Literally the like of oracle and NVDA could dump 20% overnight yet the one being accused for high volatility is bitcoin. We've gone past the time where bitcoin could swing so hard, it's becoming more stable with bigger market capitalization.

Bitcoin’s volatility declines as its market capitalization grows when the market becomes larger, it takes far more capital to move the price significantly up or down. In the early days, the market was driven mostly by retail traders who often reacted emotionally to price moves. Today, the landscape is very different funds, ETFs, public companies, and other large investors now play a major role. These players tend to trade with a plan and a long-term view, which naturally helps smooth out sudden spikes and drops in price.

I also remember reading a report that said bitcoin's volatility was lower than some stocks, but it should be noted that bitcoin has only become less volatile in recent times. Or more precisely, bitcoin has become less volatile, less prone to dumping since the ETFs were approved and Wall Street got involved. So the previous yapping about Bitcoin being a volatile and high-risk asset wasn’t wrong, but perhaps people should gradually change that thinking. Another thing to note is that since the bitcoin ETF was approved, bitcoin has yet to experience any bear season. So it is still too early to say that bitcoin has become more stable and is no longer suffering from severe dumping. Furthermore, bitcoin becoming more stable is not necessarily good news for everyone because if bitcoin is less volatile, it also means it will grow more slowly. The profits it brings will be smaller and slower than before.

Exactly. I don't know what people are thinking when they take such a small sample and start drawing conclusions. Another thing is that it is normal for Bitcoin's volatility to decrease, as it has been doing as the price and market cap rise. Today it is less volatile than in 2010. But I think it will be many years before the volatility in large samples even resembles that of the Nasdaq.

For the past year, Bitcoin has experienced less volatility because the asset is becoming more mature. The involvement of institutional investors has made the inflows or outflows that cause high volatility easily dispersed across a much larger base. The second reason might be that people are now seeing Bitcoin more as a store a value than a speculative asset. With the high rate of inflation, investors are for hedges and Bitcoin is one of them. They prefer to keep hodling regardless of the price. Reference

I guess the lack of newsworthy narratives makes people start looking for something as small as a daily change to make the headline. There's no way there's a real discussion when the dataset is small and we have years of market data, when Bitcoin can move wildly compared to stocks. I don't think that's a fact we have to ignore. I believe as long as the volume and liquidity increase, we'll definitely see more stable variance, but I don't think that's close. Reminds me of when someone argued that games make criminals commit crimes easily, even though the opposite examples are numerous.

Bitcoin has matured a lot compared to many years ago, and its capitalization has reached 2 trillion dollars and become one of the top 10 largest assets in the world. With that capitalization, it's larger than many companies listed on Nasdaq, so it's no surprise that bitcoin is less volatile. But this is not without its drawbacks because once bitcoin becomes more stable, it also means that its profitability will gradually decrease. Not every investor likes this as most choose and invest in bitcoin because of its high volatility. Because they want to take advantage of that volatility to get rich quickly, so when that big volatility gradually disappears, many people will also gradually lose interest in bitcoin.

It is now less volatile than many major tech stocks which is big sign of its growth as asset. This is happening because as Bitcoin has become more popular it is harder for small actions to dramatically change price. More and more large companies are getting involved and long term investors are coming in which helps make market more stable. It is true that Bitcoin is more mature now it can still be affected with global events. However current trend suggests that market is becoming stronger and is less likely to have wild price swings it used to which shows it is finding more stable place in world of money.

I keep on stumbling upon the words maturity or mature. To those who are saying the market has grown mature, how so? Is it because Bitcoin's use is highly regulated nowadays? Or is it because the traditional players in finance has already embraced it one way or another? Is it maturity when Bitcoin now has financial products offered in the mainstream market? Or is it because companies are keeping it in their treasuries? For me, all of this is making Bitcoin immature. To a great extent, these are steps backwards. I think Bitcoin is less volatile lately because its market capitalization has grown so big that it doesn't anymore wildly react to the decisions of traders and owners.

It can be viewed in both ways. Lesser volatility isn't implying that Bitcoin is maturing as liquidity grows and the spread of adoption. Same time Bitcoin is yet relatively a young asset, therefore quick swings may return when big events enters the market. Conclusively: it is more steady now than ever, and it is not immune to storms.

Maybe they're borrowing words from traditional finance without fully explaining what it means, just like how some people call something "mining" when they're referring to farming through a Telegram bot or something else. Hard to argue whether it's immature or not when the definition isn't clear, or if we're using two different definitions. It will lead to unproductive debate as usual.

I agree with you that to verify the assumption that Bitcoin no longer has high volatility or not, we must enter a bearish phase, which will be strong data as evidence about Bitcoin. Today, Bitcoin does not exhibit significant volatility when viewed within this cycle. After reaching an all-time high (ATH), the trend continues without a catastrophic crash, merely consolidating at its support level. Comparing this to previous cycles reveals clear differences. However, in adoption theory, even if companies do not hoard it during the bearish phase, there will still be buyers. This is demonstrated by the fact that several companies are still in the process of reviewing Bitcoin as an additional asset for their companies to own in the long term, which means that volatility will gradually decrease in line with increasing adoption.

I think it could still be called adoption although not in line with the motive of creating bitcoin but institutions buying bitcoin and holding can still be classified as adoption since they are providing liquidity and holding bitcoin in their wallets. Those buying bitcoin ETF shares are the ones not adopting bitcoin since they do not hold any for themselves and cannot use their coins anyhow they want since there is no direct ownership of such coins.

The whole point of Bitcoin was independence from third parties (decentralization and people having control of their own funds). One should be able to buy, sell, send and receive funds without a third party getting involved or controlling the funds for individuals. The more the individuals have their own Bitcoins in their custody, the more the adoption. Not some centralized institution buying Bitcoins and then selling them to clients as shares or whatever shit they call it.

That is not liquidity, liquidity is when it's at the market. So, when we are seeking this, then we are going to see how these companies just end up putting all they have into it and take the crypto out of the market which means the liquidity drops lower. And when that does happen, it means that we are not going to get the results that we want. If we do this then we are going to not get the results that we want because it would allow less liquidity cause more volatility. If we do that then it is not going to be liked by many. Just make sure that you are dealing with something that can give you a good return, and for that to mean something then these should not be considered all that much for everyone.