Checkmate is presenting a false dichotomy here, which is a textbook logical fallacy. Why are the two mutually exclusive? There can be large amounts of long-term holders selling and Jane Street "doing their thing," which at the very least amplified the long-term holder dumping. This is also a self-reinforcing cycle. The more the price drops, the more long-term holders feel compelled to take profits or get shaken out. Nobody is claiming that Jane Street is solely responsible for every red candle in its entirety. But if there is any substance to the accusations regarding their tactics, the very tactics they have reportedly employed before in other countries, then they are clearly a net negative on Bitcoin's price. To what degree is debatable, and no one can say with certainty, but the evidence suggests it's neither negligible nor trivial. There is no either/or here; it's some combination of both. We don't have to think in binaries.

I'm not mate, I am talking about the dominant factor at the top. The factor which stopped price going higher, and oversaturated demand. Whatever JS was doing, was small by comparison. Exists, but not THE factor.