It’s a dumb methodology;

I’ll give you an example, I bought at BTC $36k last month and just withdrew it from exchange after all the fiat cleared in from the legacy banking channel today. It hit the chain when BTC was $42k, so these jokers would think the cost was 42. You can’t get an accurate picture from on chain data alone.

Another major failure of the methodology is that it fails to take in to account all of permanently lost key/locked up BTC.

You can withdraw bitcoins from the blockchain? That would be fascinating new feature if it existed. /s

I added “from exchange” for clarity. I would have thought the ref to legacy banking channel would be enough reason to imply I was interacting with a fiat to cryptocurrency exchange.

Other people are "dumb" and "jokers". But when you make a mistake, it's just missing clarity or the reader's fault for not picking up what you're implying. Ok, got it.

Which mistake would that be?

The one that compelled you to edit your original post, obviously.

Only because you said something. It wasn’t a mistake, it just some ambiguity implied source, enough for you to comment. I dunno man, I don’t know what to say. I will own up to a mistake but that I do not believe is qualified as such.

Take it easy man. Nobody really cares whether or not you made a mistake, an omission, whatever. Just don't be so quick to call other people dumb and you'll be good. Peace.

Not really the same, because you can look at what currencies are actually being traded for. These researchers are not looking at bitcoin trades.

A better analogy would be like looking at clearing house data, and examining the net number of shares bought or sold at each broker, to determine how many individual investors are in the red. Even though the price changed throughout the day and you're only looking at the price at settlement time. And the net doesn't tell you anything about how many investors actually traded.