Sweet

“Bond produce nothing” - incorrect. Just silliness. ”Now you don't read what you write yourself anymore I even quoted you saying it” - I never said market value is intrinsic value, and I didn’t say USD has intrinsic value, so I don’t know what you are talking about and neither do you.

This forum is the 'value investor's haven'. Whilst I accept that there is no one single agreed definition of intrinsic value, I know that it is not whatever @wachtwoord thinks the value should be. The terminology of 'intrinsic value' is one used by value investors for the purposes of objectively as possible valuing an asset, typically using earnings, dividends, coupons etc. I agree with what investopedia have written on intrinsic value: "While [financial analysts] may build valuation models using qualitative, quantitative and perceptual business factors, the metric often used in calculations for intrinsic value is discounted cash flows". 'Intrinsic value' means something in the value investing world, and it is different from pricing, or market value, or whatever other type of value that wachtwoord thinks bitcoin has.

Bonds produce cashflow. Bitcoin produces nothing. No I didn't say those things. You say its hard to be as wrong as I am, but you can't get my views correct, even why they are written down in this thread.

That is not the definition of intrinsic valuation in investing. What you are referring to are intangibles properties that we / others assign value. Balance sheets have intangible assets for this very reason, pulled apart and in its own separate category from income and cashflows. Nobody is arguing that there is no value to intangible assets, just like nobody is arguing that there are no desirable characteristics of bitcoin, or that others don't find bitcoin valuable. The argument here, just to define it again, is that bitcoin by itself has no intrinsic value. Your problem is you think that intrinsic value is equivalent to market value or your own subjective value. It isn't.

It's your failure. You have assumed that I mistakenly wrote purchasing power - I didn't. I would agree that USD by itself has no intrinsic value, but the bonds do because they produce something. If the bonds paid in bitcoin, I would agree that the bond has intrinsic value provided bitcoin could be traded for real world produce. The silliness I'm referring to is your talk about USD printing, and also generally between the comparison of USD to bitcoin. The former being backed by the huge economic activity of the USA, with many global financial transactions being conducted in dollars, the latter not. How is bitcoin primarily priced again - largely priced against USD. I wonder why that is. Then there is this gem: *"Note this is different for equities as they are not bound to earnings in one particular currency now or in the future."* You don't seem to realise that bonds can be paid in other currencies, many countries issue euro or dollar bonds even thought it is not their own currency. Payments from US bonds could also be immediately converted to another currency, it's not like anyone is bound to keep the proceeds in one denomination. These risks you are referring are considered as part of the process of determining the intrinsic value of a bond. You obviously don't get it.

Silliness. Just because infinite USD can be printed at some point in the future, does not mean USD has no use today, or no purchasing power today. Truly daft.

Don’t agree @rkbabang Are you telling me a US government bond paying a coupon has no intrinsic value and it’s all subjective? I agree that elements of valuation are subjective but there is an intrinsic anchor to many businesses and bonds. I’m not arguing for absolutism about ‘intrinsic value’ - it’s weird that you would think I am.

I’ve been having a read, thanks for the straight answer.

you think this is an echo chamber? Why should we take you seriously when that’s your judgement of this thread and board which has been adversarial? What you posted is not, in my opinion, a demonstration of intrinsic value. I think nearly the entirety of this argument stems from differing views of what ‘intrinsic value’ is. Crypto, not necessarily Bitcoin, have some useful characteristics and some will find value in that. I’ve posted that many times now and you continually ignore it. I’ve further said that the price of Bitcoin is a function of what other people are willing to pay for it, and the valuation you posted doesn’t argue otherwise, and in fact I’d say it confirms that view.

You are making my points for me now, and you have just repeated some of what I have already posted. As mentioned, multiple times now btw, I believe the value you and other place on bitcoin is subjective. The price of bitcoin is determined by one factor - what others are willing to transact at. That's not investing in my book, it's speculation. There is nothing wrong with that but let's be honest about what it is. Ultimately investors have to make an assessment of the fair price of bitcoin. In nearly 10 years nobody has shown me measurable intrinsic value that can be objectively valued and given a price. I can only assume you haven't bothered to read my post. Since I've said several times that other people see value in bitcoin but I don't. There is not one thing self-centered about that view, but your insistence that I should accept your views are. Let's take it to the next step. . Question: What is it's fair price of bitcoin @TwoCitiesCapital and how did you arrive at that price?

Strange that you didn't address any of the points I made. I know what I consider intrinsic value, and I have my own ideas of what a store of value is. If you think it is bitcoin, fine, good luck to you. Just let me disagree without the attempted conversion.

Who buys stocks as stores of value? Seriously? I don't. I buy stocks because I want to make money. Here is what you guys don't seem to be getting. You say: "there is REAL value to have a decentralized monetary system, there is REAL value to be having a stable money supply. There is REAL value to a global payments network that is native to the Internet." I place effectively zero value on those. Read that again. I do no value those things, anymore than I value collecting stamps. The difference between intrinsic value of say a company, bond or real estate, and the subjective value you have for bitcoin, is that the former produces something. This is an investment board, why do so many seemingly not understand the concept of intrinsic value?

I don’t think you know what intrinsic value is, otherwise you wouldn’t be posting that article. The value in the article is subjective in nature, and as I JUST STATED, the useful characteristics of Bitcoin mentioned in that article is not unique to Bitcoin at all, but to blockchain. Intrinsic value in the investing world has long meant the sum of the cash flows, and Bitcoin doesn’t produce any.

I never said what I am. That’s true believer stuff you just posted. I’m sorry, but Bitcoin has no objective intrinsic value. It just doesn’t. It has subjective intrinsic value for you, and plenty of others, but not me. The benefits of Bitcoin are not even unique to Bitcoin, but to the blockchain technology. At this stage you’d have to be living under a rock to not know the basics of Bitcoin. At no point in nearly 10 years has anyone ever demonstrated it’s ‘extremely obvious’ intrinsic value because none exist. For my part I had a chance to buy Bitcoin around $100 - one I regret passing up. My regret is that it turned into this huge speculative asset class that blew up, one that I was exposed to at an early stage, and had the money and opportunity to advantage of but didn’t. However I’ve never fooled myself into believing it was anything more than a speculative bet - because it isn’t.

It can be converted to dollars, and its value has increased a lot in the past decade+, so in some ways you are right, it is a store of value. However that value has dropped 75% from its high though, and that’s a mark against it being a store value since it can lose so much. I also recently read that even most long terms holders (6 months or more) are now losing money. No idea if true. I’m happy for anyone to be believe it is a store of value and invest accordingly - I don’t care it’s your money. I personally don’t trust that it will act as store of value long term, and would never buy for that reason. I also don’t value crypto, I value assets like land, real estate or businesses. I’d speculate on it however. I’ll never understand why advocates of crypto need to evangelise the world though. I am also confused why otherwise intelligent individuals cannot understand that when an asset produces nothing, it’s value is basically subjective.

Merry Christmas . Thanks for the insights over the year.

A very good thing.

I agree, it’s not a sector you hold long term unless you get an unbelievable entry price. Even then, there is a question mark over how long the industry is required.

There has been a bullish story in oi all year but it’s been a year of up first half and down second half. Perma bulls saying throughout the year, wait until the SPR is done, when China comes back, when Russian price cap comes into force etc… oil didn’t care. The key here for investors is still US shale discipline. They can’t be growing production more than global consumption growth. If they stay disciplined oil prices will sit at a level where energy equity investors should make some money. Shale is not the marginal barrel.

A little over a week ago he said he had less than $100k. Today he just posted bail for $250 million

USSR won both their wars with Finland - it’s not a draw when the USSR gets more than it demanded before the war began.

Is 13 years is long term history? Most people in crypto have been in it for a few years only. This thread is from 2017 - 5 years. Who buys crypto as a store of value? What I see is people buying it in the hope of making it rich. I would buy it for that reason. As a store of value, it’s supposedly an argument for crypto, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen a person actually buying for that reason. Is that really why you bought it?

Has anyone seen this? At this stage she is behaving like a crook because I can’t see this as being anything other than grossly misleading. Best case scenario is she is totally delusional.

I don’t mean built in to max the use of the engine, I mean something smallish which can be attached and run while the car is idling. Not viable? There has to be a reason why it’s not been done.

Yes it’s a good idea and attractive to many including myself. I often wonder why no ICE cars are designed to double as an electric generator.