Thanks for sharing
Quick question. I am assuming you are invested in Bitcoin.
Could you share your estimate of expected annualised return from BTC for the future 10-20 year period in CHF terms?
3 Likes
You might want to watch Michael Saylor’s keynote to the bitcoin conference. He gives a 21 to 37% ARR until 2045 (that’s the slide at 18m31s):
Very optimistic, but as the master says why not have some just in case it really takes off…
3 Likes
I don’t have any estimations. The only thing I know for sure, it will be more valuable than now.
(I’m 95% BTC / 5% CHF, BVG not included).
3 Likes
Of all your net worth, you have 95% in BTC? 
Hell of a risk tolerance.
1 Like
@stojano what about third pillar?
I think it’s not NW, it’s net cash position
No, @stojano is really all-in on BTC. I guess he’d also invest his 2nd pillar into BTC if it would be possible.
2 Likes
I found the talk interesting but it felt like I was listening about a story of another planet. AI will like to keep their capital in digital assets. That digital asset will be bitcoin because bitcoin takes very low maintenance cost. As if AI is real person 
So the whole business case is set around the fact that people should put their assets in bitcoin (partially or fully) . This would create demand which would push up the price even further and happily ever after.
This can be positioned against gold because gold also doesn’t do much in real world. But I didn’t understand why he thinks BTC can replace bonds.
Bond is not just a piece of paper. It’s a debt which companies or countries use to create value added products or services which people (real humans) want and need. And only then they can return interest back or else face default. Countries can sometimes reduce their burden by inflation but still they actually borrow money to produce economic output. So in my view bond is not like gold.
Even if I don’t agree with most of the talk, mainly because I don’t understand virtual world much. I have to say he did a good job and if he succeeds in convincing people to hold 0.01 BTC which is not that much money per person and a lot of people do that. If 1 billion people end up doing that then it would establish a base on BTC price.
People love asymmetrical gains possibilities and it would feel like a lottery ticket.
yep… viac with max 5% IBIT
1 Like
Any estimate for btc will be far off the reality …
Based on the assumption that the role of btc stays the same aa today: " store of value".
I think btc will outperform all traditional asset classes. 10x on btc is possible, even 20x.
I cannot imagine a stock with a similar market cap to avhieve this. Sp500 might double or triple, but 10x is unrealistic.
The risk return profile of bitcoin is attractive, and should, in my opinion, be a part of an growth portfolio. Allocation for the “average” investor maybe 2-3%.
There is a second storyline, which the btc maxis will preach. They talk about btc becoming money. While i truely believe it would be good for society to have a world wide low inflation money which is not controlled by a country, i dont think its realistic in the near to mid future. (Gold failed this role btw mainly because of lack of verifiability of reserves, a problem btc fixed). In this use case, btc would obviously skyrocket.
Edit:
To comprehend the storyline “monetization” it helps to understand what may be broken with the monetary system today. Check out https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
1 Like
Crystal ball but I’m not afraid to say : In 10 years, 400k minimum. In 20 years 1M.
1 Like
Do you have a source? Its not my understanding
A search gave below quote from Wikepedia. BTC would seem to have the same problems but on steroids.
" The gold standard was abandoned due to its propensity for volatility, as well as the constraints it imposed on governments : by retaining a fixed exchange rate, governments were hamstrung in engaging in expansionary policies to, for example, reduce unemployment during economic recessions."
1 Like
USA had usd peg to gold.
When france and other countries wanted to exchange USD for gold, the US stopped the possibility to exchange “temporarily” in the 1970s.
The fear was that there are more usd than are backed by gold.
My understanding is that there were more USD circulating than could be covered by the gold reserves, so the problem wouldn’t have been fear but the willingness of the US government to print money without proper backing, hence fiat money.
I don’t think Bitcoin solves that problem: governments will want to keep having the ability to print money, hence they won’t sponsor BTC as a currency. If anything, they’ll go for Central Banks Digital Currencies, which allows for them to still have control over the suply while also giving them full access to all transactions done using their token. CBDCs are also anathema to an originalist Bitcoin supporter’s views.
I can get behind the “Blockchain as a payment processing network” narrative but Bitcoin as actual money on a meaningful scale seems unlikely to me.
Edit: my understanding is that gold failed as a currency because it was heavy and burdensome.
That gave rise to lenders providing notes worth a certain amount of gold that could be withdrawn at certain places under certain conditions. From there, the system expanded and in the end, only the notes remained as currency, without the gold backing (which central banks still keep plenty of in order to support their ability to stabilize their currency vs other currencies).
It was not fear, people knew with certainty there was more USD than gold reserves. It was not a problem of verifiability of reserves.
1 Like
Agreed.
Just wanted to say, wirh gold you cannot physically use it to pay. You need an paper and can obly back it with gold.
Btc is different in that sense…you can effectively pay with btc, even on layer2 scaling solutions.
So the need for paper which can be inflated is not given
2 Likes
I’m not an expert: could layer 2 be used as “paper notes” to have more “bitcoins” trading than there are actually available through layer 1 transacting?
No, not possible
1 Like
So what happens if layer 2 and layer 1 transactions are in conflict or, otherwise, what makes layer 2 scalable while layer 1 couldn’t possibly be?
Layer 1 is always the truth.
It will take ages if i try to describe layer 2 solutions.
If you are really interested, i suggest check out lightning network.
There are others as well but this is a good start for understanding
1 Like