Sure... Lot's of things "could" happen regarding BTC's price performance between now and the end of year, including down to $2k... but so fucking what?  We should not be spending our time and efforts on more extreme probabilities rather than more likely scenarios, right?

I suppose the article is emphasizing the change of rhetoric of some "important" peeps, such as Hayes.. .assuming that he is NOT just talking out of his ass for that particular assertion?

If they suggest "$50k in 2018", and then later they say "could down to $2k", it still remains important to attempt to figure out context of these kinds of BTC predictions and the kinds of probabilities these supposedly "important" sorcerers are assigning to various events at certain times (and perhaps just a spike in price too)  - and then in the end, does it matter what the sorcerer says if such BTC price prediction are provided as conclusions and without much if any context?

At this point, it does seem a bit more plausible that down to $2k could be reached in 2018 rather than $50k, but the greater probability of down to $2k in 2018 does NOT mean that it is likely for either seemingly extreme event to happen... perhaps less than 10% either way, no?  

Getting more specific:  Maybe below 10% odds for down to $2k, and perhaps below 5% odds for $50k?  

Both price performances are possible and just because down to $2k has a bit higher odds does not make it a very reasonable to be asserting such statement as if its odds were higher than what it really is.

By the way, I am just SOMAing^(tm-d_eddie) a bit regarding my actual numbers.....just to assign some approximate probabilities that might be currently quasi-reasonable for btc price movements between now and the end of this calendar year.