A bold claim. A fair test.
Turn a claim about Bitcoin into a specific historical question. Choose the condition and period, inspect the evidence and its exceptions, then share the same setup with someone else.
How this is measured ↓Loading the interactive view and its source dates…
Write the question before looking at the answer
A testable claim specifies the measured series, the condition and the period. “Bitcoin follows liquidity” is too broad. A narrower question asks what happened in the available BTC history after a defined change in a specified money-supply aggregate.
Keeping your initial question visible helps distinguish a planned comparison from one chosen after finding an attractive result. Shared settings let another reader inspect the same evidence.
Inspect the counterexamples
Average outcomes can hide a wide range. Look at how many observations support a result, which dates are included and whether one extreme episode dominates. A small sample should stay visibly small. Missing data should reduce the sample rather than be filled with an imagined price or measurement.
Overlapping windows may reuse the same days and are not independent trials. A result from one market regime should not be described as a universal Bitcoin rule.
Why publication timing matters
A macroeconomic observation can refer to one month but become public later. Revised historical series can include information that was unavailable at the time. A descriptive chart aligned by observation date does not recreate what a trader knew then.
The M2 methodology ↗ explains currency conversion and shared periods. The Dashboard workspace ↗ provides broader context around the selected comparison.
Share a question worth discussing
A useful card includes the claim, dates, source, sample size and qualification alongside its result. Invite someone to reproduce or challenge it. Neither a positive pattern nor a striking visual replaces an investment decision process.