Sure, let's imagine you have a piggy bank and you're watching it grow over time. Let's call the money inside your piggy bank "Bitcoin," which is a kind of digital money that people use today instead of coins or bills.

Now, there are two different periods we want to talk about: when Trump was in charge (let's call this Period 1) and when Biden took over (Period 2).

In Period 1:
- You started with $1 inside your Bitcoin piggy bank.
- After four years, the amount of Bitcoin in your piggy bank increased by a really big number! It grew to be worth about $65,000. That's like going from one penny to having more than sixty-five dollars in coins!

In Period 2:
- Then, Biden took over, and something interesting happened.
- In the first year of Period 2, the value of Bitcoin went up a bit more - it grew by about $18,000! So now you have around $83,000 inside your Bitcoin piggy bank.

But then, something unexpected happened. The value of Bitcoin started to go down. It fell back to around $68,000. This means you had a bit less Bitcoin in your piggy bank than when Biden first came into office.

So to summarize:
1. During Trump's time (Period 1), the value of Bitcoin grew really big - from $1 to over $65,000.
2. When Biden started (Period 2), the value of Bitcoin went up more but then dropped back down a bit.

And that's how we talk about changes in the value of something like Bitcoin when discussing different periods led by different leaders! Read from source...

Based on the provided text, here are some potential criticisms and aspects that might be considered inconsistent, biased, or irrational:

1. **Hyperbolic Predictions**:
- The article uses past gains to predict future price movements, which can be seen as hyperbolic. For instance, it predicts BTC could "easily" reach $500K if the pattern from 2013 repeats. However, market conditions can change significantly over time.

2. **Lack of Nuanced Market Analysis**:
- The article simplifies its analysis to past trends ("halving events") and presidential election cycles without delving into other influential factors like global economic indicators, technological advancements, or geopolitical events.
- It ignores potential market corrections or bearish scenarios, focusing solely on potential bull runs.

3. **Bias**:
- The article seems biased towards a Bullish stance for BTC, with no mention of any reasonable bear cases.
- It assumes that historical trends will continue indefinitely, which goes against the concept of markets maturing and evolving over time.

4. **Emotional Language**:
- Descriptive words like "easily," "skyrocketing," and "exploding" create a sense of excitement and may trigger emotional responses, rather than presenting an objective analysis.
- The phrase "You're welcome" at the end is informal and could be seen as condescending or presumptuous.

5. **Ignoring BTC's Volatility**:
- While BTC has had impressive gains, it also has significant volatility and downward movements. The article fails to acknowledge this crucial aspect of investing in cryptocurrencies.

6. **Vague or Irrelevant Information**:
- Mentions like "the next president, God forbid" seems irrelevant or distracting from the main topic.
- Including non-BTC related news (like the stock market's reaction to a tweet) may confuse readers and dilute the article's focus.

7. **Lack of Counterarguments or Risk Warnings**:
- The article lacks any counterarguments or warnings about potential risks in investing in BTC, which could be seen as irresponsible or incomplete analysis.

The article has a neutral sentiment. Here's why:

1. **Factual News Reporting**: The article is reporting historical price increases and the current price of Bitcoin without expressing an opinion on its direction.
2. **No Emotive Language**: There are no words or phrases that show a strong emotion (e.g., soaring, plunging, booming, crashing) to indicate a bearish or bullish sentiment.
3. **Objective Comparison**: The comparison between Trump's and Biden's terms is presented as an interesting fact without emphasizing one outcome over another.

The article simply presents information about Bitcoin's price history during different presidential administrations without taking a stance on whether this trend will continue in the future.