Central banks kept buying while retail investors sold, and the reason has less to do with inflation than with who trusts whom. The story behind the price is really a story about a changing financial order.
It helps to zoom out. This is not really a one-off event so much as the visible edge of a slower shift that has been building for years, mostly out of view. Seen in that light, the genuinely surprising part is not that it finally happened, but that it took quite this long to surface.
There is a counter-argument worth taking seriously. Plenty of thoughtful people read the same facts and arrive at the opposite conclusion, and their case is not nearly as weak as the loudest voices on either side would have you believe. We lay it out fairly before explaining where we think it ultimately falls short.
The numbers deserve a second, slower look. The figure everyone keeps quoting is technically true and almost completely misleading, because it quietly leaves out the one variable that actually drives the outcome. Put that variable back into the equation and the whole story changes shape in front of you.
History rhymes here in a way that is hard to ignore. We have seen a version of this before, in a different industry and a different decade, and the way it played out then tells you a great deal about how it is likely to play out now. The mechanism, it turns out, is much older than the technology.
So what changes next? The second-order effects are where this gets genuinely interesting — the knock-on consequences that nobody is pricing in yet, precisely because they are still one step removed from the obvious story. Those quieter effects, not the headline itself, are the ones actually worth watching from here.
