Bitcoin rebounds to $1,000 after China ban

From China's ban to a rebound: Bitcoin sinks and returns to $1,000

On December 5, 2013, China prohibited its financial institutions from dealing in bitcoins. The price, which had hit $1,200 a month earlier, plummeted to $980 within hours. Reports of the asset's death were premature. Weeks later, the same digital currency surpassed $1,000 again. Neither the People's Bank of China decree nor regulators' warnings managed to crush it completely.

This episode highlights the anomaly of a market that moves in minutes what others take months to achieve. For some, it is definitive proof that bitcoin is a speculative bubble. For others, it signals that no state can kill something it does not control.

What China said and why it sank the price

The measure banned banks and financial entities from processing bitcoin transactions. It did not prohibit holding them, but cut off the channel through which institutional money accessed the market. In an asset with thin liquidity, the announcement was enough for the quote to drop suddenly below $1,000.

It was the first major warning from a central bank against digital currency. Until then, bitcoin drops had responded to its own volatility. This time, a powerful actor was moving pieces. The reaction was reflexive: selling panic and a crash that accelerated in the trinc hours.

Why does bitcoin rise and fall so fast?

The reason lies in volume. At that time, the order book of the main exchange barely had 20,000 bitcoins offered up to $200, according to circulating data. Daily volume, however, hovered around 50,000. Less than what moves in a single day. With this structure, any large order sinks the price effortlessly.

It is not the first time. Bitcoin had already fallen from $33 to $4 in 2011, and at the start of this year, it crashed from $260 to $80. Each time, the drop seemed final. Each time, the asset rose again. The pattern repeats with a regularity that confuses those trying to apply traditional market logic, where a 60% crash usually precedes months of agony, not an express recovery.

Volume explains the roller coaster. What it does not explain is why more people are willing to buy at the bottom each time.

Can a state really ban bitcoin?

Here, analysis diverges. Some argue that a banking ban only pushes operations toward private channels, outside the classic financial system, where the state loses surveillance capacity. Opposing this is the argument that if banks cannot operate, big money stays out and the market runs out of oxygen.

The underlying problem is that a digital currency is not a company with headquarters, accounts, or employees to pressure. Its access to the regulated financial system can be blocked, but stopping the network that supports it is much harder. Those who bet this ban was the coup de grâce assumed something that, weeks later, the data did not confirm.

Sellers vs. holders

In this scenario, two opposing bets coexist. Bears saw the Chinese ban as the first stone of the definitive collapse and positioned themselves short while the price fell. Asset defenders recalled that every previous drop was trinc by a new high and argued that the rise would continue during the next year.

The debate has become as personal as the money at stake. There are those who point out that anyone who bought at $10 and didn't sell is truly responsible for their fate, and those who recall that the asset's value was never in its price, but in the idea sustaining it. A recurring detail in the discussion: when the quote closed at $400, many declared the battle lost. Shortly after, the same market surpassed a thousand.

---

The market that seemed dead in December is now flirting with $1,000. Anyone seeing here the end of bitcoin will have to explain why the curve rises again every time someone announces its death. And anyone believing this can only go up will have to explain what they were doing when it traded at $1,200.