That’s all. It doesn’t change anything. What matters is what is market price of the bitcoin at any given point.
But it is important to put these numbers in perspective. As per Saylor bull case, total value of BTC coins (in 20 years) in market would be
10X global stock market value (as of end of 2023)
60x global gold market value (as of 2024)
3X global real estate (not just professionally managed, but all real estate that exists)
And why?
Because it’s limited to 21 million coins & AI people love digital assets & they are cheap to maintain. As if the only point of having assets is to have lowest cost to maintain/own them.
In my view the point of owning assets is because they do something. You live in real estate, companies produce things & services that you need. That’s what make them valuable and that why their value appreciates . Gold is not useful & thus it only have 1% of global wealth.
Sorry to be a killjoy, but I’m looking for the links and videos that have been posted on this post about documentaries on BTC. I think someone mentioned an Arte documentary on the subject.
I’d be interested if someone could repost the link (this topic has become so long and full of trolls that even the search engine no longer gives any relevant results…) .
It’s like with those buying ARK ETF - most investors come in during the peak/mania and that’s where the big volumes are and also the times that long term holders offload their holdings to dumb money.
So, 39% have no exposure to Bitcoin. Isn’t it a risky position to take? I know about the opposition to it and all the contra arguments etc. but just from the perspective of “if it does what all the maxis say it’ll do” where even a 1% position makes a very positive effect…
You could say the same thing about Bored Apes etc. Buffett never invested much in tech. Some made multi-millions on real estate while others own none. There are many paths to take and each individual might have a path that suits him that looks much different from another person.
The outcome I truly want to mitigate is a global run for always more energy consumption to run cryptos, AI bots and the next tech crazes of dubious use until they’re marketed and forced down our throats. I don’t want to take part in it and feel I am resilient and skilled enough to make good income whatever the currency it’s traded in is in the future, if at some point nobody can make do without it. When they’re kept honed, skills are a currency that keeps up with inflation.
On a fundamuntal level, the thing that I really don’t like with BTC, and cryptos in general, is that average Joes practicing the “not your keys, not your coins” doctrine (which I respect) are likely to loose access to their wallet at some point.
.
The solution is to trust a third party to hold your coins for you, which creates centralization, which is the problem Bitcoin was trying to solve. More importantly, said third parties will also loose their keys from time to time, except they’ll still be able to account for the Bitcoins they can’t access on their balance sheet as long as their clients withdraw less Bitcoins than they can actually access. Fractioned Bitcoin reserves are probably already happening and we don’t know what will happen once one of them will have to admit they can’t actually provide the Bitcoin they pretend they have access to and people are left to dry.
To me and with my mindset geared toward resilience, Bitcoin is a bad idea and I see no need to partake in it.
It’s not like there is a shortage of energy. The problem is more the availability when and where its needed. Especially renewables you cannot switch on and off as you please.
This leads to the crazy situation that electricity prices become negative at times because there is nobody to use it. Or wind turbines, solar etc need to be switched off.
This greatly reduces the profitability of such energy production
Now think what if there was a type of energy use that would only switch on when energy is cheap, i.e. in oversupply and switch off when its expensive.
This would make renewable energy so much more profitable
It’s actually good for the environment:
– Deflationary system, low time preference will generate less consumption (you’ll buy more quality and less often)
– As Joe stated, it may help the green transformation as it’s mostly an economical problem and not a technological (Bitcoin captures energy and let it transfer through time)
– And war is only profitable if you can print money to finance it… war is a environmental desaster
Banking the unbanked:
Today, billions people have no access to financial system and basic services. They cannot have an banking account, rely fully on cash (unsafe, far away from modern technology). Bitcoin demonstrated that i can bank those people. They can start saving, start using the internet (and its services so normal for us)
Not having enough energy is a western - feel good - problem. I don’t think that we will go much futher in this morale direction, as inflation & economy correction are kicking in. At the end, people don’t care much about green topics, when their children are freezing during a winter in the house, while the parents can’t afford the heating extra costs. Energy costs will be way cheaper as technology will move forward. Outside of Europe, most countries are building nuclear reactors to boost their energy production to ensure cheap energy for their industry.
Even if you could say with certainty that bitcoin would go to $600k within the next 10 years, it still wouldn’t be an appropriate investment for many people: most can barely take the volatility of stocks, let alone the volatility of crypto.
It also depends on your outlook for bitcoin. If it is ‘only’ getting to $600k in the next 10 years, then that’s a compound growth rate of around 21%. The Nasdaq has achieved around 18% last 10 years (someone fact check me) so not too far off that.
I think that might be one problem with BTC: it has never been through a real financial crisis, but has instead spent most of its lifetime in some kind of weird bull market, making all kinds of people “successful” by the money metric.
The worst we’ve had since the inception of Bitcoin (2009) has been Covid, and everything recovered somewhat quickly. I’m really curious to see what happens in the next financial crisis (who knows, maybe one cause by contagion from some dodgy crypto companies such as Tether or Binance). The FTX collapse led to BTC halving in value for several months before recovering; I don’t expect people who bought recently (and who led to the current price) because of the hype to refrain from selling if something similar happens again. But I guess that’s the point: since there’s no cashflow and it’s all a zero-sum game, all the money to be made in BTC has to be made from people buying high and selling low.
Provided it has a real use (which it marginally has for some people but not broadly, currently) and isn’t just burning energy for the sake of it (like it currently mostly is), that would work.
However, if some of this energy adds itself to the peak consumption, then it also increases the total need for power production. Do we have numbers to back up that Bitcoin is/will be mined mainly during hours of low energy consumption/heavy production and not just cluster up where energy is cheap as a whole and mined broadly?
I have a hard time picturing mining being done evenly on the planet given the current wide disparities in quality and cost of life. If Bitcoin is a universal mean of buying, or a store of value, it would make sense to produce it where it’s cheap and spend it where we want it (incidentally, a side effect of a world running on the Bitcoin standard would be that it would probably require to lower the discrepencies in the levels of quality of life from place to place).
It may be good for the environment but I see it as wealth concentration and a de-incentive for creativity. It comes down to personal views but I want the people around me and myself to have to make productive use of their wealth to keep atop of the pyramid and not to be able to sit idly by and have it increase anyway on a relative to others level just because they have more of it to start with (we can get into how the current system already allows for that but I don’t think Bitcoin is a solution. A deflationary currency compounds the problem as I see it).
I’m granting you that, and it is a significant advantage to be taken into account. Bitcoin relies on connectivity, however, so remote/poor areas where part of the unbanked people are would need big investments in infrastructure in order to get to participate in a Bitcoin economy. Do MicroStrategy and other Bitcoin maximizers make it part of their mission to bring decent speed and affordable internet and electricity everywhere on the planet? (As an aside, the “Bitcoin smoothing electricity consumption” theory doesn’t work between unconnected grids so the off-grid remote miner powered by solar pannels wouldn’t help the situation.)
Mit dem Lesen und der Teilnahme an diesem Forum bestätigst du, dass du die Forum-Richtlinien gelesen hast und damit einverstanden bist sowie den Haftungsausschluss auf http://www.mustachianpost.com/de/ akzeptierst.
.