JRM

I can't remember which podcast I was listening to, but the discussion around intrinsic value for Bitcoin was around its transactional value. The interviewee stated that there are two primary sources of intrinsic value for something: 1. Discounted cash flows 2. Transactional utility This makes sense to me, and the transactional utility grows with the network.

Does gold spot price track production cost, or does production track gold price? i.e., as spot price rises more reserves become economical.

I'm worried that the fed is dependent on inflation picking up to bail them out that they could change their mandate to start monetizing the debt or coordinate with the Treasury to force spending. I'm sure they're thinking, if only we could give people transfer payments with a ticking clock attached.

That sounds like a giant redneck burn barrel. What are the carbon emissions related to methane capture in a landfill?

Perhaps by 2040 we'll have this instead of all the mis-allocation of scarce metals and minerals: https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/UK-Looks-To-Support-Rollout-Of-Nuclear-Fusion-Energy.html

At my company we were told cost parity would occur around 2023 (this was in the 2015 time period), and I think we are probably a year or two early (surprisingly). However, unless there are continued technological breakthroughs the costs will be dependent on material and labor costs and difficult to reduce meaningfully. There are location\climate factors that impact the cost benefit calculation, so its not quite as easy as x vs y, unfortunately. Also, many locations that are strong advocates for anti-nuclear, coal, and natural gas also suffer from NIMBY-ism when it comes to solar farms or wind farms. I still find it strange that we export LNG to China and import solar panels, but whatever.

It's basically a barbell approach. 70% equity and 30% cash. Will probably be fine.

It's also hilarious that this elite Russian hacker group couldn't figure out how to secure their loot in a hardware wallet. Politics aside, the whole Colonial Pipeline hack story sounds like BS.

The interview\debate with Michael Saylor reminded me a lot about the sentiment surrounding the railroad bubble and the internet bubble. During both time periods similar arguments were made about connecting the world and living in a new paradigm of unity and equality. Saylor even used a railroad analogy at one point. Its hard to blame people for comparing the analogs. It seems like if it was such a great place to park your money then you wouldn't want to share your secret with the world. It comes across like a pyramid scheme when these guys buy up a huge position and then start promoting the hell out of it. I thought Frank spent too much time attacking Michael and not enough support his arguments. Either way, it was an interesting debate.

It looks to me like we're exporting LNG to China so they can manufacture solar panels to ship back to us. Doesn't seem very ESG. I read that the IEA put out a projection that renewables need to scale up 12x between now and 2050 in order to eliminate carbon emission. Not 2x, not 3x, ... 12 X! 500,000 lbs of dirt (the right dirt) must be excavated and processed for enough material to make the battery cells for one Tesla. In short, we don't have the resources readily available to make the renewable transition quickly or affordably. Natural gas is still required to bridge the gap until technology improves, and we will still grow oil demand until 2035 according to the IEA. And no, Bitcoin mining is not going to stabilize the grid. Link to my very popular thread on minerals required for renewable transition:

I took my son to get some Mexican food yesterday and they had white-out over all of the old prices on the menu and wrote in the new prices.

Even more damning is that Trump could have been on the right track with HCQ\Invermectin, but we had to follow the "science" instead. How many people died unnecessarily due this political arrogance? https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/The-Drug-that-Cracked-Covid-by-Michael-Capuzzo.pdf

I don't think the "problem" is quite that simple. I think it's a combination of demographics and monetary policy. Running the register at McDonald's used to be a job reserved for high school kids looking to make an extra buck, not as a long term career or for the retiree that fell short on their savings in retirement. People are living longer than they used to and working longer. The old geezers shaking their fists at the sky saying things like "millennials just don't want to work for nothing!" are the same old geezers who refuse to retire and step aside so a new generation can take over. The minimum wage in 1964 was $1.25 per hour. Adjusted for CPI inflation that's somewhere around $10 per hour. However, the melt value of 5 1964 quarters with 90% silver content is around $25 (5 x 0.18 x $28). Not to go down the CPI conspiracy theory path, but our fiat system has stripped wealth from the middle and lower classes. In summary we have shitty demographics in the US on top of a monetary system that punishes savings. UBI will not fix the problem unless the money comes from taxing the "rich" vs monetizing the debt. I should add; these problems have been papered over by falling interest rates for the last 40 years. Where do we go from here?

Wow. Thanks for taking the time to explain that.

Could somebody explain to a 5 year old what is going on right now with the reverse repo purchases?

A decent read with added nuance to some of the anti-bitcoin arguments. https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/the-case-against-bitcoin

I'm a sucker for a good conspiracy theory. What do you guys think about this?

Give me the opportunity set in 2009 through 2011 and I'll give you some good posts. How do you know what a good post is? Do you check back 1 or 5 years later to see if it worked out? Does the end result correlate to the quality of the post? In my opinion if you can't explain the thesis simply in a few short sentences or bullet points then its not that good of an idea.

According to Morningstar (may not be accurate), the price of GBTC is ~32 and the NAV is ~41, so ~78 cents on the dollar?

Is there a reason GBTC is trading at a ~78% discount to NAV? It has high expenses, but why the steep discount? Didn't this previously trade at a premium to NAV?

Serious question: with the price correction in progress what is a good entry price to start buying Bitcoin? What is the logic behind your entry price?

https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions Some interesting executive summary highlights: -Since 2010 the average amount of minerals needed for a new unit of power generation capacity has increased by 50% as the share of renewables in new investment has risen. -40% to 50% reduction of silver and silicon used in solar panels since 2010 -Average of 16.5 years from discovery to first production of new mine -Total lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of EVs are around half those of internal combustion engine cars on average, with the potential for a further 25% reduction with low-carbon electricity.

huh? all I've been talking about is the energy use argument.

Tools have been available to track individual transactions and help locate wallets, so I don't view Bitcoin as anonymous; and hence not great for committing large scale crime. One of the last 'features' of USD is small transactions can still be done anonymously. My guess is Elon figured out that nobody was going to pay capital gains tax on their Bitcoin position to buy a Tesla. To turn such an abrupt 180 on such a sketchy basis makes me think he is trying to appease somebody. As as the energy use argument; I think it comes down to a difference of opinion. We are both aware of the facts, and we arrive at different places. That does not make me anti-crypto or anti-Bitcoin. I think we have different thresholds for functional utility vs energy use. Also, I use LED Christmas lights, so I don't really notice the effect on my energy bill. I live in a part of the country where some people keep their lights up all year, so maybe that's part of the problem.

The energy consumption in 2017 was a fraction of what it is today, and my understand is the consumption rises (linear or exponential?) as price goes higher. Discussing these issues with someone who has made up their mind on Bitcoin is like arguing with a gold bug. https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/05/14/as-the-price-of-bitcoin-has-climbed-so-has-its-environmental-cost