Watched the video and tbh he doesn't really debunk the claims with enough evidence either. The topic is one of those things where it's extremely hard to gather enough evidence to 100% support the claims. Definitely agree you shouldn't just blindly believe everything in this article, but saying "it's not that good an article" is quite lackluster. What are the usual 200$ trending Steemit articles to you then? >.<''
About the original question, it's because he didn't bit the mighty Steemit bots with his own money. Current upvotes received are mainly from tiny 10-100 steem power users I'd assume.
I hear you on Steemit voting that the value isn't representative of popularity, it's a broken system and we all know it. Like DataDash I wasn't a fan of the angle used of the idea of a cartel, or the analysis on gold or silver, which overall is most of the article really. For example, if there the cartel didn't exist (imagine for a moment) I still think BTC would have still reached $20k over the hype of being listing on a futures exchange - it's what people in the space have been building hype around for years. Furthermore, a natural correction would follow after going parabolic.
The other reason is I think ETFs will happen to Q2, when this is announced the bull market will return. Does this mean that then the cartel found in futures markets will be buying into Bitcoin to pump the price, and then dump it again after? Almost certainly, along with many other day traders, lambo boys and speculators. But does this mean that this cartel would be trying to suppress the price. No.
Until the price reaches $2k then there's not really any hard evidence that the cartel are manipulating the price that I can see. Instead I read lots of TA that tells me I should be buying the dip and selling the rally, like this article, which is actually what is only helping to drive down the price in the short-term.
On principle, because I support decentralized P2P currencies, I don't day trade in a bear market for example. I'm therefore not a fan of the suggestion to be doing this in the article, I find it a lot more damaging than the idea of a cartel manipulating the price. I'd instead argue this article attempts to manipulate the price by encouraging sellers, creating FUD that the price will reach $2k with no evidence of how this would be possible fundamentally, and otherwise promoting scalping in a bear market. Not a fan.
Conspiracies are easy to believe in, they provide comfort where there is confusion and doubt. This doesn't mean they are always accurate or true. I prefer to follow technical analysis that tells me BTC will find a floor between $4k and $6k, which would be in line with it's historical growth and volatility.
When people loose 70% of the value of their BTC temporarily then in my opinion they'll believe anything to make themselves feel better. I wonder how many people panic sold the dip.
He is not encouraging to sell, he is preparing people of what may come, he mentioned how he is holding 75% of his positions still, he gave an opinion of what very well may be occurring, i feel you didn't understand the point to this article and also you may not have completed reading it either and rather were just against the idea of the 'cartel' so disproved. It is a very well written article with proof, citations and valid reasoning, to all their own opinion. Cheers !
to answer your first sentence, On steem you can't expect to just be found by the large stake holders, the best way to get their attention then their vote is to purchase promotion from bots like @promobot and @postpromoter.
http://Steembottracker.com
My first sentence wasn't a question and yes I'm aware this is how it works, I do this myself like anyone else who wants to effectively buy SP with SBD at a discount. Given that Steemit is meant to be a media platform of organically curated news (from it's users) this is why I called it a broken system, because what actually happens is self-curation. To put it simply most popular articles are those that are payed for, not ones that have been curated by the community. All that would be needed is to adjust the platform to ban self-curation to resolve this issue, it's ironic.