Increase in Bitcoin Addresses as More People Join the BTC Price Surge
coincolony.net
coincolony.net
During the 2018 spike, there was a massive surge in interest in Bitcoin, which has been notably absent this year. However, since COVID hit the issuance of stablecoin Tether has been through the roof, going from $4B to $18B and counting printed.
Each Tether is supposed to represent $1 added to the crypto ecosystem. So here's the big question: if there's not much retail interest this time, where did that $14B come from? Or is it more likely that it didn't, and the Tether being used to buy BTC at ever-higher valuations isn't backed by anything?
This is the classic emperor has no clothes situation. Nobody in crypto wants to expose them because the value of their own holdings will plummet to zero. And at $18B they’re basically too big to fail. As much as people pretend otherwise Tether and Bitfinex is defining the price of crypto, everything else is a rounding error.
I believe this is the latest update on the suit. [1]
Have a look at a sound USDC then - market cap $450mil in march --> $3bil now. Same underlying story.
>Nobody in crypto wants to expose them because the value of their own holdings will plummet to zero
Gotta give it to them it's a pretty smart scheme. Print money out thin air and co-opt the whole crypto community to not question it as it'd crash everything.
I do wonder how much longer that can continue.
My guess would be that the Usdt is somewhat backed, so you can exchange some amount of it for usd and as long as no one questions any of that arbitraging it across exchanges is basically free money. Once tether gets a bank run and it becomes obvious it's not fully backed, that spread will shoot up
Still, the energy waste because of mining is mind boggling. And what do our societies get back for it?
I can’t tell.
People have vague stories about ‘decentralized’ and boohoo government. Most of those stories are just excuses to gamble for lambo money.
Bitcoin does not add any value to society. It subtracts only, as far as I can tell.
It made Silk Road possible, but that doesn’t make a good case now, does it?
I’m sorry for all the people who are going to lose money in this thing again.
https://louwrentius.com/cryptocurrencies-are-detrimental-to-...
Unfortunately, ycombinator has a stake in coinbase, if I'm not mistaken.
I can't imagine what kind of value that provides to our society.
Think of a system where you can invest your money in a share of land, a fraction of a house or a share in a fleet of a car-riding service without paying 10-20% of fees to realtors/brokers or other middlemen.
Think of ebay, but where you only pay for the product if the whole supply chain can provably demonstrate that no child labor was used. Bonus: no counterfeits.
Think of a community that can run its own credit cooperative without depending on any bank.
Think of the idea of being able to provide micro-credit for people in developing countries without worrying that your funds might end up in the hands of some corrupt tribal leader or siphoned out by some corrupt NGO board member.
That's what "permissionless, programmable money" is.
https://www.wired.com/story/theres-no-good-reason-to-trust-b...
"Trustless" is not about solving anything. It's about enabling new interactions that do not require a central coordinator - aka, trusted party. That is it.
Of course you can have "trustless" systems that are malicious or potentially abused. No honest advocate would claim otherwise.
The issue is that it is an illusion to think that trustless systems can exist at all.
To me, trustless is an oxymoron. There is always a step of trust. There is always vulnerability.
Permissionless just means it’s a haven for criminals and terrorists. North Korea has built up a sizeable stockpile of permissionless crypto. [1] this is the definition of the reason currency has permissions. So it doesn’t get used by hermit kingdoms to finance their nuclear weapons programs.
[1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.technologyreview.com/2020/0...
Doesn't this mean it's essentially failing in its goal to work as a currency? Why do people still buy it / believe in it?
Ah, now I understand the name "Lightning Network". Cheers!
It’s 2020 an ACH transfer costs in bulk about 1/10th of a cent and has no practical cap.
Also, why. It makes no difference.
Back in 2014 I was consistently selling BTC to friends in Brazil at a rate that made perfect sense for them and even above the BRL-USD rate.
This year I paid for all of my domain renewals using BTC on namecheap. Hundreds of dollars.
You can go to a service I provide right now and you can purchase the services with ethereum and ERC20 tokens. I also accept Raiden, which can make the transaction cost virtually zero.
I will reiterate what I asked in first comment: instead of just arguing with the amygdala, is there any chance you can establish a set of parameters and values that will make crypto (not necessarily Bitcoin, not necessarily Ethereum) something you consider worthy of a experiment, or are you forever going to believe that the status quo is the best we can do?
> Also, why. It makes no difference.
You playing the cynical permabear who sees no point in building on blockchain tech is no different from a corporate drone who does not understand why people work on Free software without any immediate financial reward.
Even if Bitcoin fails, it has already paved the way for something that won't. You may not care about your freedom and self-reliance, but it ABSOLUTELY makes a difference.
Well played, I upvoted you in no small part because of your wordplay there :)
I see no point in building anything backed by proof of waste, it’s simply not a reasonable value proposition. It’s like trying to build coal fired cars. Yes you’ll build a car, but it’ll be wildly less efficient and strictly worse than all alternatives. That eliminates a good 90% of crypto currencies by market cap. Setting aside for a second that the market cap of a currency is a nonsensical metric, currencies are what you measure market cap in not of.
Permissionless and irreversible are not things humans want or benefit from. Permissionless is what has allowed North Korea to fund its nuclear program with billions of dollars of cryptocurrency. It’s what allows ransomware authors to get paid and shut down schools and hospitals. It’s what allows laundering the proceeds of crime. It’s what allows rampant market manipulation.
Decentralized prevents the currency from responding to externalities like births, and deaths, and pandemics.
And that really knocks out the rest.
The reality is trust is a huge optimization.
Beyond that most solutions are cheaper, faster, simpler and map better onto human fallibility if implemented as a MySQL table in RDS. Then you can secure it with a Merkel tree and call it a day.
No, I’m not bullish on crypto because it has yet to, in 12 years, do anything better than what’s out there today except separate suckers from their money. It’s great at that. And this is in spite of some of the smartest minds in the world working day and night to do so. If a single crypto product shows even a 1% improvement over a classical implementation along any axis I’ll eat my ... er, hat (yes, that’s a John McAffee reference) and buy your bitcoins at what I’m confident will be a dramatically higher price.
> You may not care about your freedom and self-reliance, but it ABSOLUTELY makes a difference.
There’s no such thing, we live in a society.
So, I guess, I respectfully disagree but always appreciate hearing the other side.
> backed by proof of waste
Already claiming that PoW is the only possible approach. Off to a good start.
> Yes you’ll build a car, but it’ll be wildly less efficient and strictly worse than all alternatives.
The first electric light bulb was certainly less efficient than candles or oil lamps. The first airplanes could barely carry the pilot. Should we give up work on new technology simply because the current iteration is not better than the status quo? What a lame attitude.
> That eliminates a good 90% of crypto currencies by market cap.
You said it yourself. Market cap is a bullshit metric from the perspective of the technology. Irrelevant to the argument.
What is relevant is that a good number of these different currencies are trying different approaches to solve different problems, or trying to implement different financial models, different levels of centralizations/trust, and so on. For every aspect of Bitcoin that you criticized, there has been a different project that tries to overcome that. Yet, you completely ignore it just because it is easier to look at what is wrong in the present instead of working to fix things for the future.
> Permissionless and irreversible are not things humans want or benefit from
Contradicted by the amount of people putting their time, energy and money on. YOU don't want it, fine. YOU don't speak for everyone.
> North Korea, ransomware, money laundering.
FUD and bullshit. Do you blame the use of petrol for enabling Al-Qaeda or left-wing dictatorships in Venezuela? You are very well aware that money laundering already existed before crypto. Have you renounced your use of banking systems because of all the drug and weapon traffickers that used HSBC to launder money for so long?
Criminal activity and the need for spending resources in security is never going to go away.
> Decentralized prevents the currency from responding to externalities like births, and deaths, and pandemics.
Okay, that's the third statement based on the current implementation. Hat-trick!
> The reality is trust is a huge optimization.
Definitely! No serious person would challenge that. No serious person would also challenge that systems that are too optimized are more likely to fail in unpredictable ways and collapse after Black Swans.
This is why decentralization is important. It's not about efficiency, it's about hedging bets to improve our chance of surviving catastrophes.
> has yet to, in 12 years, do anything better than what’s out there today
That's FOUR! This kid is on fire...
> There’s no such thing, we live in a society.
Societies. Plural. To be honest, I am more concerned about people that want to establish an "universal" society than I fear all of the scammers that try to exploit people in crypto.
I didn't, I tackled the most prominent first.
> Contradicted by the amount of people putting their time, energy and money on. YOU don't want it, fine. YOU don't speak for everyone.
I think you misunderstand. Many people put their time and energy into it because it's overwhelmingly a get-rich-quick scheme. If the price went down to $1/BTC you can bet your behind nobody would care at all anymore.
> FUD and bullshit. Do you blame the use of petrol for enabling Al-Qaeda or left-wing dictatorships in Venezuela? You are very well aware that money laundering already existed before crypto. Have you renounced your use of banking systems because of all the drug and weapon traffickers that used HSBC to launder money for so long? Criminal activity and the need for spending resources in security is never going to go away.
I do, which is why I believe in technology that can make the problem better instead of technology which surrenders to the criminals and walks away.
> Okay, that's the third statement based on the current implementation. Hat-trick!
Sure, if you pretend there's some platonic ideal cryptocurrency that doesn't have any problems, and is perfectly efficient, why not? I'll be waiting for OP to deliver.
> FUD and bullshit.
Not if you decided to look for information. $2 billion dollars and counting as documented by a pro-crypto news source. [1]
That's the definition of permissionless. Many pro-crypto folks hold this up as an example of crypto working properly! "Why should we allow America decide who can and can't spend money! Iranians and North Koreans should be able to conduct commerce internationally too!"
> Societies. Plural. To be honest, I am more concerned about people that want to establish an "universal" society than I fear all of the scammers that try to exploit people in crypto.
You misinterpreted. That expression implies we each live in our respective societies but that nobody is self-sufficient.
[1] https://cointelegraph.com/magazine/2020/10/09/north-korean-c...
You may have a lot of people on the hodl camp, but a lot of people are like me - less worried about lambos and more focused on ensuring that we can create feasible alternatives to the status quo.
Yes, there will be a vast majority of people that are in it for the short-term gain. It doesn't matter. Every market needs to have speculators. I will still be focused on the long term.
I am not betting my life savings on it and I am not recommending anyone to do so. What I am telling people though is that crypto will be a fundamental part of how groups of people coordinate themselves and allocate their resources, and that the sooner they start getting acquainted to it the easier it will be when it is more mature for wider adoption.
> North Korea... $2 billion dollars and counting as documented by a pro-crypto news source.
I am aware of the story, this is not what I am calling FUD. What I am saying is that you are using crypto as a scapegoat. State-sponsored terrorists can cause damage regardless of them being financed by crypto, gold, oil or greenbacks.
Black markets were not invented with crypto. Money laundering is estimated to be between 800 billion to 2 trillion dollars. Those were the number before crypto, yet you make it sound like BTC, ETH, ZEC and Monero are the Four Horsemen of Apocalypse. THAT is what I am calling FUD and BS.
> platonic ideal currency
I know it will never be perfect. No implementation of any system ever is. But the only way to have something better than the existing flawed solutions is to iterate, use it, test it in the real world and keep improving.
To make an analogy with Free Software: I know that is never going to be perfect or satisfy every use case, but its flaws are on the implementation side, not the principle. The more I use and the more I contribute to it, the less people get to be dependent on proprietary crap.
What you are saying is that people should not bother working on making a better Free Software Desktop because the current systems are not as "usable" as Apple and likely will never be. That is, quite frankly, a horrible way to live.
US interchange is about 1.8% and that’s largely returned to buyers in the form of reward programs. The remainder is split between profit and the cost to originate and service loans. This isn’t a bad deal, at all, as studies show merchants enjoy 20% larger ticket sizes and don’t have to fear theft of cash or scammers taking their crypto - while customers enjoy protections and rewards.
In Europe interchange is capped at 0.3% for credit and 0.2% for debit, so of course they Don’t have reward programs.
A Bitcoin transaction costs $10 in fees and $80 in electricity so you’d need an average ticket size of $30000 in Europe ($5000 in the US net of reward) to make BTC more efficient.
In what context? I've read some of the posts that you've made in this thread and at this point i'm almost certain that you either work for a bank or for a credit card provider. You are glowing.
It’s not bad in the sense that merchants get larger average ticket sizes and avoid a lot of risks, customers get insurances and protections including chargebacks, the ability to defer and consolidate their cash flow via 1 month no interest loan.
A bitcoin transaction does not cost $10 (https://mempool.space/graphs#1w). If you are going to add in your (completely made up?) estimate of mining costs to a bitcoin transaction you would need to include the costs of the entire fiat payments and settlement infrastructure to the costs of credit card transactions. From gold mined and stored by central banks all the way through to the energy used by the back offices of commercial banks all over the world.
At the time I posted this, the average fee was hovering between $8 and $14 per transaction, and so I picked a fairly generous, low average.
> If you are going to add in your (completely made up?) estimate of mining costs to a bitcoin transaction...
It's not made up, it's available for you to review and criticize here [1], with all the linked studies available to you. I specifically did not include the 700 kWh at a global average $0.14/kWh ($98) so as to avoid inviting this criticism.
> ...you would need to include the costs of the entire fiat payments and settlement infrastructure to the costs of credit card transactions. From gold mined and stored by central banks all the way through to the energy used by the back offices of commercial banks all over the world.
Without going through the process of estimating what it is, I can tell you what it isn't -- even close to the same order of magnitude as BTC. I know that because if I scaled up linearly the energy consumption and e-waste generation of BTC vs. just Visa it would require several times more energy than the entire world generates today, and would generate more e-waste than the entire world generates today.
It's wasteful, and it's shameful for people to defend it like this. Its energy usage is not comparable, at all, no matter what externalities you tried to bundle in. Now there might be a case to be made that the energy usage is worth it, but deflecting the energy usage criticism with hand-waving about including the calories exerted by gold miners swinging pick-axes under the earth is at best disingenuous.
However, 10 years later, Bitcoin has proved to be a new kind of financial instrument, with extremely useful properties unmatched by any other kind of asset.
At this point, of all the things Bitcoin can do that other financial assets can't (pseudo-anonymous, extremely hard to confiscate, can be moved quasi instantaneously across borders, demonstrably finite supply, can be use as a settlement layer for large players, etc ...) the one aspect that I believe attracts people is "store of value".
Many people contest that last property citing high volatility, and they're correct if your window is less than 4 years. But for folks who play the long game, supply and demand tells a verycompelling story for Bitcoin.
Calling Bitcoin a "currency" at this point is essentially incorrect and just creates confusion.
Currencies are tangible, generally recognizable and agreed-upon value containers to be traded for goods and services.
Calling it anything else at this point, I'd contend, would likely be essentially incorrect of its own merits, and I do think trying to separate it out would create confusion as it really does no good at all.
It is certainly a special kind of currency, but no different than some of the other universal currencies that we've had in the past, really, at all.
Can anyone definitely put their finger on what's causing price rise a global market like crypto? no
Can they do this probabilistically? perhaps.
For pump and dump schemes, aren't we past that stage for Bitcoin at least? Isn't Bitcoin too big and too "mainstream" to be pumped in some Telegraph channel? Maybe you can clarify what pump-and-dump strategy you think is being used here?
As for not having the money... [1] their own lawyers admitted in court they aren’t fully capitalized. At the time the article was written it has a measly $2.5B market cap (net of what the Fed’s seized, at least $350MM [2]). They had a bunch tied up in the separate scam that is Crypto Capital.
As for their banking relationship I believe after a few years of Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego’s proceeds of money laundering (Taiwan, Poland, among others) their most recent statement was that it was at Deltec Bank in the Bahamas who is clearly on the up and up [3,4]
Let me ask you, can you with a straight face tell me this is a company legitimately holding eighteen billion dollars? And that two BILLION dollars a month in new money is rolling in like clockwork for a year and a half?
[1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/stevenehrl...
[2] https://www.google.com/amp/s/cointelegraph.com/news/bitfinex...
[3] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cryptoglobe.com/latest/2018...
[4] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-02/bank-tied...
(NB: I'm not defending Tether, IMO there are way better stablecoins, like DAI, but I disagree about this bullrun being caused by it.)
“By mapping the blockchains of Bitcoin and Tether, we are able to establish that one large player on Bitfinex uses Tether to purchase large amounts of Bitcoin when prices are falling and following the printing of Tether. Such price supporting activities are successful as Bitcoin prices rise following the periods of intervention. Indeed, even 1% of the times with extreme exchange of Tether for Bitcoin have substantial aggregate price effects. The buying of Bitcoin with Tether also occurs more aggressively right below salient round‐number price thresholds where the price support might be most effective. Negative EOM price pressure on Bitcoin in months with large Tether issuance points to a month‐end need for dollar reserves for Tether, consistent with partial reserve backing. Our results are most consistent with the supply‐driven hypothesis.”
“Overall, our findings provide support for the view that price manipulation can have substantial distortive effects in cryptocurrencies. Prices in this market reflect much more than standard supply/demand and fundamental news. These distortive effects, when unwound, could have a considerable negative impact on cryptocurrency prices.”
They print tether, backed by nothing, which increases its market cap, and use it to buy Bitcoin which increases its price, which increases its market cap. Win-win! Haha. It’s like the accounting on arrested development — take a banana, take a buck.
Here is a Google Trend for "economic uncertainty", where nothing seems to have changed much except maybe little blip during Spring of 2020: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=economic...
Edit, found a link which actually does show heightened economic uncertainty: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/USEPUINDXD perhaps contradicting myself.
Maisie Williams asked her 2.7M followers recently [1]: "should i go long on bitcoin"
Maybe that was a paid tweet, maybe not. 900k people answered in the poll still; and day after day it seems the mainstream is getting more and more exposed to it.
[1] https://twitter.com/Maisie_Williams/status/13287844990612234...
What they sell is a security pegged on Bitcoin.
However, that means they have strictly no need to actually own the underlying. They're just playing the bookmaker game without ever having to payout.
It's therefore unclear that this affects the BTC markets at all.
Transfers and purchases will be enabled in the coming months.
Talk is cheap, and actually - in their case - lucrative.
Not your keys, not your coins.
>Technology: Paxos Crypto Brokerage provides crypto custody and trading for PayPal. Our APIs allow PayPal to offer crypto services seamlessly within the PayPal app with its simple and intuitive user experience.
https://www.paxos.com/paypal-paxos-bring-crypto-to-millions-...
They are basically brothers who hate each other.
I don't see a 10x price increase like 2017 though. I expect less extreme price movements now that bitcoin's market cap is so much higher and more large investors are involved. I think it would take something huge to move the price that much, like a bitcoin ETF approved by the SEC.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=...
For the sake of the children† and the diversity of the planet‡ let’s hope not, eh? I mean it’s just tremendously wasteful to generate Bitcoin.
I don’t mind it as a concept, I think it’s cool, but fuck me what a waste of energy.
† Have none, don’t care.
‡ This tho.
Not to mention it likely makes international arms and drug dealing Bond villain Paul “Solotshi” Calder Le Roux the wealthiest man on earth.
[1] https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption
[2] https://www.wired.com/story/was-bitcoin-created-by-this-inte...
Also, that guy is not Satoshi. Satoshi is almost certainly dead, and was probably Hal Finney.
Ok I provided a detailed article explaining why Paul Le Roux is probably Satoshi and you responded with nothing.
Your $80 is based on the current block reward which was set totally arbitrarily and is not in any way an estimate of the actual amount necessary to prevent 51% attacks in the future after the block reward disappears.
When that ends of course nobody will pay the actual $80-100 per transaction in electricity actually required to secure the network making it vulnerable to a 51% attack.
Ha, no. Theres a thing called "security" and if you don't pay for it your gold evaporates or walks away.
It's not really that simple. There is a different breakdown when you look at individual vs global costs. There is a cost to an individual for storing gold - e.g. building a vault, hiring a guard etc. This cost was the original incentive scheme behind the early banks - if we pool our gold storage then we can pool our security costs. Beyond that individual cost there is no additional global cost for storage.
Bitcoin is free to store for an individual. Once funds are stored at an address in the blockchain they will stay there. Although the global cost is huge it is invisible at the individual level - nobody needs to participate in mining the chain to hold bitcoin.
History suggests that individuals favor situations where the costs have been socialized and are not visible at the individual level.
The cost to store Bitcoin is the cost to secure the network, and its outrageous. Further it scales linearly with the price of Bitcoin as block reward value does.
Science says we’re already pretty much fucked if we don’t go full-on panic mode, and here we are, still wasting this opportunity, if not to keep our feet dry, at least to keep our chin above water...
It's not wasteful if it's providing transactional security.
Just for perspective, there are THREE MILLION ATMs globally. And that's just ATMs, totally ignoring the infrastructure for the 60,000+ global banking institutions.
Also, no one is happy about the energy consumption and the centralization of miners in China and subsidized dirty plants, which makes an eventual change to a Proof-of-Stake protocol likely as it matures.
When we get to that point, are you going to start using crypto or are you just going to find another reason to bash it?
Bitcoin is actively user hostile, has a worse wealth distribution than any banana republic, the majority of it is in the control of criminals and shady actors, no I don’t want them to be the wealthiest people on earth while the rest of us fight for scraps. Currencies benefit from their ability to respond to shock, and to the addition of new market actors. Deflation only serves to entrench existing wealth.
There’s literally nothing to like about crypto. Nothing. People deserve better than what you’re shilling.
Crime, corruption and fight for power exists independently of what people use for currency. "Criminals and shady actors" also control significant amounts of paper money yet you are not here trying to argue against people to use paper money, right?
> I don’t want them to be the wealthiest people on earth while the rest of us fight for scraps.
Are you living in North America or the Euro zone? Then you are already top dog, dude.
> Deflation only serves to entrench existing wealth
Do the existing inflationary policies are helping out in reducing inequality? Who were the greatest beneficiaries of these recent stimulus packages, QE, etc?
> There’s literally nothing to like about crypto.
I'm pretty sure there are, you just don't want to acknowledge it. But most importantly, the question that I pose to every perennial-crypto-critic: Do you think that the status quo is the best that we can do? If yes, have you stopped to look at all the existing issues with the global financial system and can you honestly make a case that they are all insurmountable problems? If no, do you accept that we need to have people experimenting with alternatives?
“If you’re living in North America or the euro zone you’re probably top dog”
What? I’m saying that the overwhelming majority of Bitcoin is owned by a small cluster of criminals and everyone else has to fight for scraps of the chain. Those people aren’t who should be wealthy in the new world order. That’s not better than the existing system, it’s worse, and we deserve better.
“Do existing financial policies help reduce inequality”
It requires a combination of fiscal and monetary policy but I do know that moving to deflationary strictly makes the problem worse by rewarding people who sit on money and don’t move it.
I reiterate there’s nothing to like about crypto. It’s all hot garbage. Is the existing system better? 100 times yes. Is the existing system perfect? Lord no. But I don’t think we should replace it with something strictly worse for the sake of a change. We all saw how 2016 played out. I’m in no rush to 2016 our money.
The one thing that I'd like to point out is that most of your arguments are either exclusive to Bitcoin (not crypto) and/or a social-economic-political issue that has nothing to do with the technology of crypto or blockchain.
Take your speculation of the identity of Satoshi. Let's say it's Le Roux. So what? First, he is in jail, which is more that we can say about a lot of other Criminal Lords. Second, having a bitcoin stash does not get him out of there. Third, even if you pull the "he can use his stash to order bad things to happen" argument you know that the same thing would be true if he was in control of a gold stash or a Swiss account. Lastly, even if managed to get out and managed to prove that he was Satoshi, he would not be a leader of a "new world order" were his ethics and morality would suddenly be glorified.
Also, you confusing Bitcoin with crypto leads to the interesting position where you sound both as a Bitcoin maxi and a Buttcoiner. Case in point: if you are right about "small cluster of criminals owning a lot of Bitcoin", there will be no need to "fight for scraps of the chain". What will happen is simply is that those will start using another chain. When Tether does go out in flames (which I am with you and I hope they do as soon as possible), Ethereum will go on. Fuck, even if you are against ETH you can still use ETC, so where is the part that people are being forced to adopt one chain over another?
To sum up: don't throw the baby with the bathwater. It's not because Bitcoin at this point in time has a lot of issues that crypto/blockchain should be considered "all hot garbage". Your attitude is reactionary and leaves no room for any kind of change.
So something most be changing - either wallet software is preferring to use new addresses more often, or something else, like more distinct users.
They're not excluding old, never-reused addresses, so the number of addresses is always increasing as every transaction adds more.
What they tweeted was that this rate of increase has itself increased by about 20%. Since blocks have been full during this period, this means the difference lies in the type of the transaction. If the current transactions are more of a fan-out (pay multiple parties) and less consolidation (sweeping payments made to the same institution), then that makes sense.
And indeed, right now there is a larger than usual outflow from exchanges. Maybe people are getting nervous about holding increasingly more valuable bitcoin on exchanges and are pulling their funds off? That alone could explain a 20% increase in this meaningless "address count" metric.
However, right now, Ethereum is responsible for a lot of the demand for BTC, and it moves a lot of it through its money protocols. There's currently almost $3 billion worth of BTC deposited to Ethereum in various forms. The most dominant one is "Wrapped BTC" which has been growing at a staggering rate. In one year, it added more than $2b worth of value. See the graph here https://defipulse.com/wbtc
I'm not in favour WBTC because it's custodial. Not your keys not your coins yadda yadda.. right? Still, it has its uses if you just want to farm some yields for a little bit of time on Defi, while staying in BTC.