Musk changes his mind faster than turning the pages of a book. Is he manipulating the crypto market with his words?

Last week, Tesla announced that it would stop supporting Bitcoin as a payment method for its products, causing Bitcoin to fall below the $50,000 mark and casting a shadow over the crypto market. However, the matter is not over yet.

Picture translation:

Netizen: When Bitcoin supporters find out next quarter that Tesla has liquidated its Bitcoin holdings, they will slap themselves in the face. Considering that Musk is currently hated by Bitcoin supporters, I don’t blame him.

Musk: Indeed.

Last night, Musk continued to make various bearish remarks about Bitcoin on Twitter, such as "Bitcoin mining is not decentralized", "The accusations of Bitcoin supporters make me want to focus on Dogecoin", and even hinted that Tesla might sell its Bitcoin holdings, which directly triggered a plunge in the entire cryptocurrency market.

Since some institutions have already invested in Bitcoin, Tesla, as one of the largest Bitcoin holding companies, has a self-evident influence on Bitcoin prices. "If Tesla believes that Bitcoin is bad for the environment, other institutional investors may worry about government scrutiny and decide to sell Bitcoin" - this is the biggest concern of investors in the industry.

So, was Tesla's suspension of support for Bitcoin payments a decision made by Musk on a whim, or was it the board of directors or executives succumbing to external pressure?

In February this year, Tesla invested $1.5 billion in Bitcoin and soon announced that it would accept Bitcoin as a payment method. Although Bitcoin is positioned more as a "reserve asset", becoming a payment method is a symbol of mainstream recognition. Therefore, this positive news caused Bitcoin to surge.

In many parts of the world, Bitcoin-based payment methods are spreading as a result of the spread of Bitcoin's network effect. However, in theory, Bitcoin is not particularly suitable as a means of payment due to its high transfer fees and slow confirmation time.

Tesla once said in a report that Bitcoin is a high-quality reserve asset and a useful payment method. In fact, this statement itself is a bit contradictory - if Bitcoin is positioned as a hedge against inflation, why should consumers use Bitcoin as payment? For most of Tesla's target audience, Bitcoin has no advantage over bank transfers or credit card payments. They can use Bitcoin as collateral to borrow legal currency and then use legal currency to buy cars.

In other words, the number of Tesla customers who really want to pay with Bitcoin is extremely small, or even non-existent. Therefore, Tesla's suspension of Bitcoin payments has a negligible economic impact on both Tesla itself and Bitcoin. Tesla made this decision because "Bitcoin mining and transactions will rapidly increase fossil fuel consumption."

According to Tesla's official website, Tesla's mission is to "accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy." Last week, Tesla was included in the S&P 500 ESG Index, which is rated based on environmental, social and corporate governance scores in the same industry. Earlier this week, Reuters reported that Tesla is seeking to enter the multi-billion dollar U.S. renewable fuel credit market. From this perspective, Tesla's suspension of Bitcoin payments is understandable, and perhaps not Musk's deliberate market manipulation.

From a global perspective, some countries and regions have begun to realize the potential of cryptocurrency mining-related businesses. In many cases, Bitcoin mining can actually promote economic development for regions with abundant natural resources but low infrastructure spending. From a policy perspective, the more people talk about Bitcoin mining, the more it will be accepted as an industrial activity. Governments realize that mining bans will only drive them elsewhere. At the same time, mining with renewable energy can eliminate the mainstream society's stereotype of so-called energy loss, thereby clearing a major obstacle to widespread investment in the Bitcoin market.

In summary, Tesla’s concerns about energy consumption in Bitcoin mining are not a bad thing. If they can be elevated to policy attention and energy improvements, it will eliminate barriers to Bitcoin investment, encourage further development of the cryptocurrency industry, and explore the role of Bitcoin in many basic areas of society.

If Tesla's suspension of support for Bitcoin payments can be considered "understandable", then Musk's personal attitude can be said to be capricious.

Last month, when Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey tweeted that "Bitcoin incentivizes green energy," Musk replied "yes."

After Grayscale shorted Dogecoin, Musk seemed to have changed his attitude towards Bitcoin. While constantly calling for Dogecoin, Musk said that Bitcoin mining was too centralized, and then hinted that Tesla might have sold its Bitcoin holdings, which made the entire market uneasy. In the afternoon, Musk said that Tesla did not sell any Bitcoin. The market rebounded instantly.

Some people said, "Musk is not short of money at all, so what bad intentions could he have? He has no need to manipulate the market, and influencing price trends is just an unintentional act." Others said, "Musk found that he could easily influence the rise and fall of the cryptocurrency market on Twitter, and making money is much easier than selling cars, so he naturally enjoys it and doesn't care about the lives of retail investors."

The editor believes that Musk's remarks may affect the price of Bitcoin in the short term, but its long-term value is not determined by Musk's remarks. As long as the fundamentals of Bitcoin do not change, the long-term price will still follow the value. When Musk alone can influence the market, the entire industry needs to reflect - is investing in Bitcoin because of admiration for Musk? Only when the cryptocurrency industry is no longer incited by a single individual can it truly mature.