I don’t have the answer for that. I was merely saying that I don’t see Bitcoin as being able to fix wealth inequality / the “system” (if that’s what @stojano was referring to about his trip to France). If anything I could see it act similarly to the current system. For example, bitcoin backed loans from early adopters to buy up housing and other hard assets for example to keep the prices out of reach from the “average” person. Again that’s more of a political take so we don’t need to continue further in is thread.
Thanks! Although it’s all unrealized-gains as I don’t plan on scaling out of any.
Pretty sure that (freezing fiat) happened in Canada already during the COVID “Freedom Convoy”. I don’t think the protest was violent (although disruptive to the average city person), with likely a few bad apples causing some violence.
You’re talking about unrealized (paper) profits, I’m talking about realized profits. If all BTC owners sold now, they wouldn’t sell at 90k+ because the price would crash. But their sole profit is really through selling BTC (there’s no dividend), so their positive unrealized profits would turn into realized losses (on average).
The point is that there’s no (positive) cashflow, it’s not a productive asset, it’s a greater fool asset: all the money that one gets out of selling BTC comes from somebody else putting the money in, minus the fees. At any given point, people have overall put more money into BTC than they got out, and that started at the first BTC sold. Basically TOTAL_MONEY_OUTFLOW = TOTAL_MONEY_INFLOW - FEES.
The one argument I can see against this line of thought could be that, if we can always find a greater fool (the price keeps going up), the realized profits could always be positive, so it’s not that bad. A bit like a Ponzi scheme that would never collapse and would keep getting new members, and thanks to population growth, that would never be such a problem per se (I guess you could also consider certain pension systems for this analogy). But just like this Ponzi scheme would then have its growth constrained by population growth, in the long run, the flow of money into Bitcoin is constrained by the growth of the productive economy (which it can extract money from and which it’s not a part of). If you then add the negative part, the fees, you end up with an asset that will eventually have to grow more slowly than the productive economy, at which point it’s not clear for how long people would refrain from dumping it. So the losses would have to be realized eventually on average.
Please question the intentions and authors background of the opinion articles quoted in media.
For example this author is consulting the BIS.
He cannot be pro btc. It would literally make the institution obsolete.
Same is true for the famous 2 ECB employees which are quoted by FAZ all the time and are sooo wrong in their predictions it just gets ridiculous.
I agree that it is important to take into consideration potential conflicts of interest. Please keep in mind however at the same time that whoever is invested in Bitcoin also has a conflict of interest.
In other words statements of Michael Saylor and a likes should be taken accordingly.
Having said that it would be interesting to understand where you see the weaknesses of the article and the statements made.
True, Saylor talks a lot of hype as well. I dont really like listening to him as the statements are often so extreme and a bit weird.
The article for me however is just factually wrong and shows the author doesnt understand the matter or miuses it intentionally.
For example ponzi sheme, certainly he is aware of the definition but completely misses the point. As there is no central authority benefiting from btc, it cannot be a ponzi.
A crash of btc because of stablecoins. Absolute utter nonsense.
I dont really have the time now to disect everything. Basically i just wanted to point out to take these opinions with a grain of salt
all of what you said is applicable to gold as well for example. and with some differences (that probably make it worse) to most currencies as well. I mean you can even go further and expand that same argument to bonds and stocks. Yes the money has to come from somewhere and it’s either from another “fool” that bought your stuff directly (BTC) or indirectly (bought an iPhone and you own apple stock), or it’s because of money printer.
I also don’t understand your fixation with fees. Fees isn’t money/bitcoin that evaporates. It’s a price billed for a service. You either have fees to buy bitcoin (which goes to exchanges) or fees to move bitcoin (which go to miners).
Well, should have stayed diversified instead of putting everything on ETH lol. It‘s not a huge amount, but I left a couple of k on the table. Luckily it‘s not bothering me as I have other worries at the moment.
Potentially altcoins will catch up soon.
When ETH pops its probably a good time to get out and shift to BTC.
I would not hold anything else than btc to be honest. I think bitcoin is a very special and fantastic thing. But the “crypto” market is basically a giant rip off
I agree with @Joe_Coconut. if ETH pops, transfer some to BTC, or if you have additional savings and want more exposure, just buy BTC when you think it’s a good time to re-balance your port.
Does this chart really mean what I think it means?
My interpretation
Every now and then, the actual invested capital in BTC becomes equal to the actual market cap of BTC. Intuitively it makes sense because there is no returns generation and only cost generation (maybe not high costs) and hence the personal equity is the net asset value.
Does it mean the long term market cap should be expected to be at same value as the long term invested capital ?
By reading and partipating to this forum, you confirm you have read and agree with the disclaimer presented on http://www.mustachianpost.com/
En lisant et participant à ce forum, tu confirmes avoir lu et être d'accord avec l'avis de dégagement de responsabilité présenté sur http://www.mustachianpost.com/fr/
Durch das Lesen und die Teilnahme an diesem Forum bestätigst du, dass du den auf http://www.mustachianpost.com/de/ dargestellten Haftungsausschluss gelesen hast und damit einverstanden bist.
$97,500
It will come in it’s due time…