`  == Ladislav comments == ``Commercial use of Bitcoin, illicit or otherwise, is currently small compared to its use by speculators, which has fueled price volatility.`` - this, in my opinion, does not belong to the opening paragraph, since it is controversial:  * Speculation is the practice of engaging in risky financial transactions in an attempt to profit from short or medium term fluctuations in the market value - there has been no research trying to determine how many bitcoin owners engage in bitcoin transactions to profit from short or medium term fluctiations of the market value to compare the share of speculators to the share of people engaging in transactions for other purposes.  * In the Speculation article there is also mentioned that `` The role of speculators is to absorb excess risk that other participants do not want, and to provide liquidity in the marketplace by buying or selling when no participants from the other categories are available.``, which means that speculators do not ``fuel volatility``, the truth being that they ``absorb excess risk`` and ``provide liquidity``  * There is also an opposing opinion that volatility was caused by overregulation.https://moneero.com/web/blog/post/regulators-make-bitcoin-volatile-and-unsafe     ``Bitcoin has been a subject of scrutiny due to ties with illicit activity.`` - this is like stating ``USD has been a subject of scrutiny due to ties with drug dealing``. The fact is that it is unrelated to bitcoin in the same way like a similar sentence would be unrelated to USD.    As such, it does not belong to the opening paragraph.    :I'm not sure where you get the idea that we can't mention controversial things in the opening paragraph. There are a massive array of reliable sources reporting on the subject of bitcoin speculation and price volatility, and it is trivial to demonstrate that there is far more trading of bitcoin on exchanges than there is use of bitcoin in consumer commerce. That a person who works for Moneero (a startup company involved in bitcoin wallet development) has a contrary view hardly refutes all of those mainstream sources.     ::Yes, there are sources mentioning bitcoin speculation and price volatility, but they contradict the Speculation article as I demonstrated, so either the sources on bitcoin are wrong, or the Speculation article is. ::Re ``it is trivial to demonstrate that there is far more trading of bitcoin on exchanges than there is use of bitcoin in consumer commerce`` - that, however, does not prove that the ones trading for bitcoin on exchanges ``attempt to profit from short or medium term fluctuations in the market value``. No ``trivial proof`` is of any worth to prove that. Actually, there is a proof that many bitcoin holders do not intend to sell their bitcoins on an exchange. Such holders cannot be called ``speculators`` because they are provably not attempting to profit from short or medium term fluctuations in the market value.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by   •    :::Wikipedia articles aren't reliable sources. If the reliable sources are stating that bitcoin is the subject of rampant speculation (and the price volatility is, again, a factual statement based upon observable price fluctuations), we must report what those reliable sources are stating. ::::For me a source mentioning ``rampant speculation`` without spending any effort on trying to confirm his statement is unreliable, but I do not have any problem to ignore that even if I see it written in Wikipedia.    :::You appear to be drawing unsourced inferential conclusions from uncited statements in the lede graf of a Wikipedia article. Those inferences are interesting and might even be true. But they are also original research which we cannot use in articles. Everything on Wikipedia must be founded in reliable sources, and we must weight those sources in accordance with their weight in mainstream thought. See Wikipedia:Advocacy - our role is not to ``right great wrongs`` for ideas that have been