A man named Saylor, who likes Bitcoin a lot, says that the time when people could buy Bitcoin and make it go up more is over. He thinks this because of many new things happening with other digital coins called memecoins and also because some people are borrowing money to buy more Bitcoin even though it's very expensive. Also, he says that a special thing called an ETF will not help make the price go up anymore. Read from source...

- The author starts with a weak premise that calling tops is always challenging, which is irrelevant and vague for the reader. He does not provide any evidence or data to support this claim.
- He acknowledges the possibility of Bitcoin rising smoothly by 10%, but he does not explain why this would imply that the rally is over. He seems to be contradicting himself by admitting a positive scenario for Bitcoin while arguing against it.
- He mentions Michael Saylor's potential purchase of $500 million more Bitcoin, which could support the rally, but he dismisses this as irrelevant. He does not consider the impact of such a large buyer on the market demand and price. He also seems to have a negative bias against Saylor, who is one of the most influential proponents of Bitcoin.
- He cites the Las Vegas sphere as a reason for the rally being over, but he does not specify how this relates to Bitcoin's fundamentals or market dynamics. He seems to be using this as a scapegoat or a red herring to divert attention from his lack of arguments.
- He lists several examples of Solana-based memecoins, such as Dogwifhat, BODEN, WHOREN, etc., and implies that they are somehow competing with or replacing Bitcoin. However, he does not provide any data or evidence to show how these tokens have impacted Bitcoin's adoption, demand, or price. He seems to be using them as straw men or irrelevant distractions.
- He mentions Bitcoin's 90% rally within 30 days with maximum pullbacks of 15%, but he does not explain how this is a sign of a bubble or a top. He does not compare it to previous rallies or historical patterns. He also does not account for the possible factors that could have contributed to this volatility, such as market sentiment, institutional adoption, regulatory developments, etc.
- He cites meme coins such as Shiba Inu and Pepe seeing a 1000% surge, but he does not explain how this affects Bitcoin's value or demand. He seems to be using them as sensationalist examples to appeal to emotions rather than logic.
- He mentions Bitcoin's annualized funding rates consistently at 100% for weeks, with total open interest on centralized exchanges increasing from $25 billion to $50 billion. However, he does not explain how these metrics indicate a bubble or a top. He also does not provide any context or comparison to other assets or periods.
- He mentions Saylor issuing $