Another property of Safemoon which has attracted wide criticism is the ownership pattern of the current supply of the token. A large proportion of Safemoon’s total liquidity is owned by members of the founding team. Although these funds are in a so-called lock-up, such concentration of ownership is often a cause for serious concern in the crypto space. In part, this concern is because of the influence that major holders—called whales—have over price movements when they sell.
Although short term relationships are erratic and sparse, this is the period band that contains most of the negative—although usually fleeting—relationships (shown by leftward facing arrows). The relationships link online activity increases to price falls (the converse is not observed). It is not surprising that occasionally discussion is associated with price falls, as negative events (e.g. blockchain bugs, and exchange hacks) are newsworthy in the community.

Shiller, R. (1981), “Do stock prices move too much to be justified by subsequent changes in dividends?”, American Economic Review 71 (3), 421–36.
Another institutional hit for bitcoin–which probably had the most sustained effect–was the SEC’s refusal to approve a bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF). This would be a path for more mainstream people in finance to dabble with blockchain; it would allow investors to dip their toes in bitcoin without owning the actual asset. Not only that, but it would make bitcoin available on the most prominent financial markets. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), however, has yet to allow such a fund to exist–mostly because it is unable to monitor crypto-transactions in order to avoid market manipulation.