Will Bitcoin’s price reach all-time high by the end of 2024?
resolved Mar 7

After reaching the unit price of 67,617 USD on November 8th, 2021, Bitcoin has consistently lost value to the point of being trade for less than 20,000 USD in the following months.

If Bitcoin's price reaches a new all-time high value of at least 67,617 USD by December 31, 2024, this market will resolve to “Yes”.

The reference to resolve this market will be CoinGecko’s price monitor for Bitcoin. If the currency surpasses the mentioned level and the referred source is not available at the time, I reserve the right to check another credible source as an alternative.

Close date updated to 2024-12-31 5:59 am

Get Ṁ600 play money

🏅 Top traders

#NameTotal profit
Sort by:

Hey all, sorry for the delay - I was traveling at the Bitcoin conference, actually, and hiking in mountains.
I'm not happy about ATH, bitcoin should stay cheaper so we all could buy more.

This resolves YES by all means. Thank you for participating!

@itsTomekK Okay I forgive you since you’re in a bitcoin conference

Did you get anyone in the conference to start betting on Bitcoin markets?

thanks for forgiveness, if I wasn't there there would be no ATH

@AmmonLam i got friends willing to build Manifold fork natively on bitcoin, that's what we all eventually need

@itsTomekK Manifold fork on bitcoin?

@AmmonLam gotta consult with the team ( @Austin plz help) to understand its architecture and mananomy

@SirCryptomind @Gabrielle @Gen or any other mod/admin, please resolve YES. Criteria in description was met 2 days ago, proof posted, and author pinged with no reply. Thanks!

As for the long explanation of the issues here, NO holders last week tried arguing that the level stated in description was not the true ATH. Whether this is true or not is irrelevant for this market. As all know, there is no single authoritative ATH figure (or even any price at any given time) for BTC, and authors usually specify their chosen source in the description, which this author did at market creation and traders traded with that level in mind for 16 months. The $67617 figure chosen by author indeed is the peak seen when hovering over the chart seen at the source mentioned in the description. However, this source also has a hidden pane where a higher ATH level is given. Still, this “chart-derived” figure was the one freely chosen by the creator for this market over a year ago, and again, whether it is the “true” ATH or not is irrelevant, as can be verified by dozens of other ATH questions in manifold, with different ATH figures, most resolved but a few still open, and not a single complaint or deceived traders since all understand the market description is what determines resolution.

The issue here is, after that challenge by the second largest NO holder at the time (who in the last 24h has now switched to YES), the market creator seemed to acquiesce, disregarding the whole 16 months of trading based on their originally chosen figure clearly stated (twice) in description and no one having ever complained that it wasn’t the “true” one, until the very last moment when it was about to get breached.

Allowing such an obvious moving of the goal posts would make a mockery of this whole platform, its purported anti-fraud guidelines, its mods, and most importantly its honest predictors staking hard earned mana relying on the trust and promise that the rules will be enforced by admins and/or mods, guaranteeing bad or abandoned resolutions with objectively known outcomes will get fixed.

Thanks again. I hope all agree this is unambiguous and clear YES, based on description.

@deagol Thanks for letting me know about the market. I've created a Discord thread to discuss this with the other mods, since it's a bit of an unclear case. You're welcome to join in on Discord, as is everyone else interested in the market.

@Gabrielle Lol I resolved it, is this really a reasonable disagreement? I will leave it to the mods if you think it's worth it Gabrielle

@deagol FWIW Tomek is famously slow to resolve markets and as such is generally happy for mods to resolve them (if I remember correctly). But, what that also means is that his silence doesn't really mean anything, certainly not that he'd made an active decision not to resolve it.

@Gabrielle thanks for giving it a look. Can you at least share what you think is unclear about it?

@chrisjbillington I unresolved it, @itsTomekK will likely decide it.. I was triggerhappy, but if there is perceived disagreement Tomek can ultimately decide

@Gen but FWIW it should stay closed so Tomek can't farm bonuses by doing the "uhh will I resolve it?? haha maybe" thing - I'm over it

edit: Yay, it's resolved.

@Gen what are those bonuses? i wanna farm more

Bitcoin just hit its all-time high. But that number remains up for debate :)


The Journal says it has hit an all time high, you about resolve it as yes.


@itsTomekK Just resolve YES already. Thanks.

You can't just change the precise criteria that has been specified in detail since the creation of the market more than 16 months ago, which stood unquestioned and unchallenged, and only 4 days ago acquiesce to the challenge by one of the biggest NO holders. This could be easily construed as collusion and fraud by some (I merely attribute it to incompetence).

Edit: btw that reference link in description is broken. Wait… are you Tom from Futuur? lol

@itsTomekK Please resolve Yes, or state what price are you going to use for the resolution

@deagol Hyperbolic accusations without any evidence are unserious and immature.

@JimAusman what accusations? I stated the facts, and I do have plenty of evidence of incompetence from the author’s past markets. Myself and others have had to deal with these silly resolution issues for what should be simple objective number comparisons, yet they happen over and over. Far from hyperbolic, I stated that opinion as a parenthetical.

Please tone it down with the ad hominems. Again, I have not made any accusation against you, much less resorted to insults.

@deagol “This could easily be construed as collusion and fraud” could be easily construed as accusations of collusion and fraud.

@JimAusman why did you cut off my sentence?

So what’s the final number you’re going to use?