- American billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban bets on MATIC and Ethereum against Bitcoin.
- Cuban recently discussed his preference for the Ethereum scaling solution, explaining that Bitcoin is not a good store of value.
- Analysts predict further consolidation in MATIC price; the altcoin has posted 7% losses overnight.
Institutional capital inflow to altcoins continues, and Mark Cuban believes MATIC and Ethereum could outperform Bitcoin. MATIC price recently suffered a drop, and analysts predict a continuation of the downtrend.
MATIC price could continue its downtrend
Mark Cuban, the American billionaire entrepreneur, is bullish on MATIC and Ethereum. Cuban prefers Ethereum and its scaling solution over Bitcoin, arguing that the latter is not an ideal store of value.
There has been a spike in institutional capital inflow to MATIC since 2021. Brett Harrison, President at FTX.US, agrees with Mark Cuban and bets on Ethereum and Proof-of-Stake (PoS) ecosystems.
Harrison believes altcoin prices could break into a rally as Bitcoin dominance rises. MATIC’s utility drives its adoption and has drawn investors like Cuban to the project. Cuban is a known proponent of cryptocurrency, putting his weight behind Dogecoin for its ease and utility, driving its adoption through his NBA team Dallas Mavericks.
Mark Cuban revealed that he has accumulated “a lot of MATIC and Ether.”
Despite upgrades on the Ethereum network, the issues of scalability and congestion continue to plague the altcoin’s blockchain. MATIC offers a solution via its higher throughput and lowers transaction fees.
Despite the capital inflow and rising demand, MATIC price has plunged. Analysts have evaluated the MATIC price trend and predicted a continuation. @AltcoinSherpa, a renowned pseudonymous analyst, believes that MATIC price could reverse its trend if it sustains above the 200-day Simple Moving Average.
FXStreet analysts believe that MATIC price could drop another 15% in response to geopolitical woes. The altcoin has posted 7% losses overnight.
This news is republished from another source. You can check the original article here