Alright, imagine you have a cookie jar at home (this is like the Bitcoin market in South Korea). Usually, cookies in your jar are the same price as cookies elsewhere. But sometimes, for some weird reason, there aren't many cookies left in other parts of the world (like when Bitcoin is popular and everyone wants it), so people are willing to pay more to get cookies from your jar! This makes the cookies in your jar more expensive than the ones outside.

Now, here's what happened:

1. **The cookie jar was empty** (Bitcoin prices were very low on South Korean exchanges compared to global markets).
2. People thought this was a great time to buy cookies from other places and bring them to your jar to sell high! (People saw this as an arbitrage opportunity.)
3. But then, something unexpected happened, like maybe your mom said you couldn't have any more cookies from the outside because it's too much trouble (Bitcoin prices increased in South Korea again).

So, people who bought cookies elsewhere planning to make a profit had to sell their cookies quickly when the price changed back. That's why Ki Young Ju was wondering why people were selling now if they didn't buy cookies for this reason in the first place.

In simpler terms: When Bitcoin is in high demand globally but not in South Korea, people can buy it cheaper there and sell it at higher prices worldwide. But when that gap gets smaller or disappears, those people who bought during the discount have to sell quickly to avoid losses. Read from source...

Based on the provided text, here are some potential criticisms and inconsistencies from various perspectives:

1. **Lack of Context and Clarity**:
- The initial tweet from CryptoQuant doesn't provide much context about what exactly was meant by a "narrow discount" or how the arbitrage opportunity was supposed to work.
- The article jumps quickly into discussing President Yoon's actions without clarity on how they relate to the market fluctuations.

2. **Biases and Assumptions**:
- Ki Young Ju's question, "Why did the people selling now even buy Bitcoin in the first place?" implies a certain expectation about why people should buy or sell Bitcoin in political instability.
- It assumes that everyone who bought Bitcoin during stable periods should sell during political instability, which might not reflect actual market sentiments or individual investment strategies.

3. **Inconsistency with Popular Narratives**:
- The popular narrative around the "Kimchi Premium" suggests that cryptocurrencies should trade at a premium on Korean exchanges due to high demand from local investors. However, in this case, Bitcoin was trading at a discount.
- This inconsistency isn't explored deeply enough in the article.

4. **Lack of Market Insights**:
- While the article notes the recovery in prices, it doesn't delve into why the initial sell-off happened or provide insights on what factors might be influencing market sentiments.

5. **Reliance on Single Opinion**:
- The majority of analysis comes from a single source (Ki Young Ju). It would be more balanced to include thoughts from other analysts or traders as well.

6. **Emotional Behavior in Market Analysis**:
- Ki Young Ju's use of an emoji ("🤷‍♂️") suggests a level of frustration, which can color the analysis and come across as emotional rather than objective.

Based on the text provided, the sentiment of this article is **neutral**. Here's why:

1. The article presents a recent event where Bitcoin prices dropped and then recovered on South Korean exchange Upbit due to political instability.
2. It discusses the "Kimchi Premium" phenomenon and how the current situation is converse to it.
3. There are no strong positive or negative opinions expressed by the author about the developments in the Bitcoin market.

The analyst's question, "Why did the people selling now even buy Bitcoin in the first place?" can be seen as neutral rather than negative, as it is asking a genuine question without making a judgment on the Bitcoin market.