A fascinating theory postulated by That Martini Guy of Youtube fame suggests that WikiLeaks and its co-founder, Julian Assange, were behind the dip in BTC prices today.

From the YouTube channel,

Its very clear with the timeline of events, the wallets, and the application of a little logic that Wikileaks is responsible for the dip. They had a MASSIVE amount of Bitcoin that was at the very least worth $20 million USD. With Julian Assange getting arrested it makes a lot of sense they needed to sell there BTC in order to pay for the massive legal fight ahead.


The theory is that Assange could also have been behind the initial pump that took place days ago that saw Bitcoin rise to $5500 USD before cooling off. The commentator suggests that Assange or a willing accomplice, knowing of an impending arrest, set up shorts via leverage trading on BitFinex and then profited from a series of sell-offs, netting a potential gain of around $2 million in a brief period of time. The final dump in this series of selling orders takes place the very same minute that Assange was arrested by police in the Ecuadorian embassy, located in London, UK.

Wallet transactions and addresses were carefully tracked and show evidence of subsequent “washing” of these funds, with the goal being to reduce the ability to track the moved assets.

The sudden sell-off of around $20 million worth of BTC would surely cause a significant dip, but also points to the possibility that this dip might be short-lived. Prices have settled around the $5K support level, for the moment. If the market sees this as an opportunity to buy BTC at a temporarily cheaper price, the market value could quickly rebound. However, a further negative move, perhaps brought on by panicking sellers, could send prices further downward.

A bigger question than the fluctuating price of Bitcoin must be considered with today’s news of Assange’s arrest– a question of much greater importance: Does it make sense, in any free country, for a reporter to be arrested for the “crime” of revealing state-sanctioned war crimes, while the war criminals themselves remain free, never to experience justice for their actions?