Cryptocurrencies

[Milu]

I’m somewhere in the middle when it comes to bitcoin. I’m not fully onboard with the “it’s going to change everything and everybody will own it eventually narrative”, and definitely not in the it’s a scam/tulip camp. I think it will continue to grow nicely as a gold alternative before eventually growing past gold ‘market cap’. 
 

It’s my biggest position and I sleep safe at night with that fact. 

[tooskinneejs]

1 hour ago, Libs said:

Anyone who is anti- BTC is not going to change his mind because it's $300,000 in 5 years. If going from basically zero to $90,000 in 16 years, with adoption going mainstream, and (IMO) a reasonable bull case in place, if those things  haven't done the trick, nothing will. 

 

It's like Buffett said - you either grasp value investing in 30 minutes or you never will. 

 

That's not to say the bull case is a lock; or that you can't make money outside of value investing. Just that BTC isn't for everyone.

What is its intrinsic value right now?  

[TwoCitiesCapital]

11 minutes ago, tooskinneejs said:

What is its intrinsic value right now?  

 

Without discounting future growth - just the current network is in the ballpark of ~$60k today. 

 

The price with discounting? Depends on the discount rate you use to account for the risks to the outlook. 

 

But I expect the network growth trends to remain intact which will result in price growth of ~50+% compounded growth on that price for the next 5-7 years. And because of that, I'm willing to pay more than $60-70k today knowing that it is still the best marginal use of my capital. 

Edited April 22, 2025 by TwoCitiesCapital

[tooskinneejs]

24 minutes ago, TwoCitiesCapital said:

 

Without discounting future growth - just the current network is in the ballpark of ~$60k today. 

 

How much network ownership comes with each BTC?

[changegonnacome]

23 minutes ago, TwoCitiesCapital said:

But I expect the network growth trends to remain intact which will result in price growth of ~50+%

 

How sensitive do you think "network growth" which I assume is another word for adoption is to the economic cycle?

 

Isn't a new user/wallet purchase of BTC kind of the ultimate in consumer discretionary spending? Which is to say highly economically sensitive? 

[TwoCitiesCapital]

1 hour ago, tooskinneejs said:

How much network ownership comes with each BTC?

 

As of today? About 1/19.5 million

 

1 hour ago, changegonnacome said:

 

How sensitive do you think "network growth" which I assume is another word for adoption is to the economic cycle?

 

Isn't a new user/wallet purchase of BTC kind of the ultimate in consumer discretionary spending? Which is to say highly economically sensitive? 

 

It's definitely economically sensitive. The adoption/contraction cycle has been pro-cyclical with BTC price. I expect drops in price to slow the adoption and rises in price to accelerate it. If you zoom out though - the secular trend in adoption is up and not by small amounts. Just have to ignore the noise and the euphoria/depression moods of the market and buy when it makes sense and stop buying/trim when it makes sense.

 

I don't intend to pay higher than $100k this yea. I cut my DCA by 30% when we went above $80k. I stopped DCA'ing entirely above $100k. Started again at the recuded amount  when we fell back below $100k. At prices above $150k, is stop rolling put spreads and would start letting shares go in my IRAs. Selling taxable lots hasn't really been decided on yet. 

 

I expect the highs will ultimately be higher than that (perhaps much higher ) but also recognize the possibility of the next bear market lows could be in the $100k ballpark or below - I don't want incremental capital dead for another 2-3 years waiting for growth to catch back up so manage my risk this way. 

Edited April 22, 2025 by TwoCitiesCapital

[tooskinneejs]

25 minutes ago, TwoCitiesCapital said:

 

As of today? About 1/19.5 million

 

 

How is ownership of the network evidenced?

[gfp]

On 4/12/2025 at 2:34 PM, gfp said:

At least is has been so far.  I wouldn't assume "this time" is a past tense thing just yet.

 

Big ole downtrend might be broken on the 'close' today, whenever that is.  Gotta start somewhere if you wanna stop going down

 

 

 

And you guys think technical analysis is useless!

 

[TwoCitiesCapital]

51 minutes ago, tooskinneejs said:

How is ownership of the network evidenced?

 

Not sure I'm understanding your question. There are ways to validate how much BTC is outstanding and how much BTC you own? 

 

BTC is the network. 

[Dave86ch]

12 hours ago, Libs said:

Anyone who is anti- BTC is not going to change his mind because it's $300,000 in 5 years. If going from basically zero to $90,000 in 16 years, with adoption going mainstream, and (IMO) a reasonable bull case in place, if those things  haven't done the trick, nothing will. 

 

It's like Buffett said - you either grasp value investing in 30 minutes or you never will. 

 

That's not to say the bull case is a lock; or that you can't make money outside of value investing. Just that BTC isn't for everyone.

It's not for everyone, but it will eventually become part of everyone's pension fund.

 

[james22]

13 hours ago, Vish_ram said:

In a decade, practically everyone (investors) will be owning BTC directly or indirectly. 

 

Just like Halal/Sharia ETFs, ESG based etfs, folks like Reds will own non-crypto ETFs (includes companies with zero crypto exposure).

 

Curious, I checked the Portfolio thread. Thought it'd be funny if Reds held a Nasdaq 100/QQQ (containing MSTR) fund.

 

Nope.

 

On 7/4/2024 at 8:26 AM, 73 Reds said:

As an almost pure Buffett disciple, my goal has always been to invest in stocks and other assets that can eventually be passed down to heirs.  More than half of my net worth is in fully paid for real estate.  Other investments include a highly concentrated stock portfolio.  Largest holdings are BRK, AAPL, HD, MSFT and lately FRFHF.  . . .

 

Since youth I have no debt - buy everything including real estate for cash.  (I watched debt ruin one too many people).  Will gladly trade an extra few % of return for a good night's sleep.

 

Helps to understand where he's coming from. 

[Milu]

6 minutes ago, james22 said:

 

Curious, I checked the Portfolio thread. Thought it'd be funny if Reds held a Nasdaq 100/QQQ (containing MSTR) fund.

 

Nope.

 

 

Helps to understand where he's coming from. 

He seems like a smart guy and looks to have done well through his investing. If his approach has been successful for decades and provides for his lifestyle and family then it doesn't really matter if he ends up owning bitcoin or not. He'll do fine either way.

 

 

[james22]

3 hours ago, Milu said:

He seems like a smart guy and looks to have done well through his investing. If his approach has been successful for decades and provides for his lifestyle and family then it doesn't really matter if he ends up owning bitcoin or not. He'll do fine either way.

 

Well, he'll do fine if he doesn't own bitcoin, sure. As will all the naysayers here.

 

But success can blind one to opportunity: he'll do much, much better than that if he does.

 

That's what we mean when we argue bitcoin should be part of everyone's portfolio. The opportunity cost is HIGH. 

 

I'll buy him a beer in 5 years either way.

[Vish_ram]

Reds is a man of pure heart. He wants to protect hapless CoBF investors from reckless speculators who shamelessly peddle Ponzi schemes.

 

Long live Reds. 

[73 Reds]

4 hours ago, james22 said:

 

Curious, I checked the Portfolio thread. Thought it'd be funny if Reds held a Nasdaq 100/QQQ (containing MSTR) fund.

 

Nope.

 

 

Helps to understand where he's coming from. 

Nah, got to know what you own.  But I've also said that @Vish-ram's recommended portfolio for purely passive investors is not a bad idea, which I believe holds 5% BTC and the index which also holds some crypto.  Nothing wrong with gambling with a small % of your net worth.  I just prefer to gamble on stuff with better odds.

[tooskinneejs]

14 hours ago, TwoCitiesCapital said:

 

Not sure I'm understanding your question. There are ways to validate how much BTC is outstanding and how much BTC you own? 

 

BTC is the network. 

Bitcoin is a virtual currency.  Owning it gives you no ownership of the network of computers on which transactions are recorded.  You asserted the currency's value was based on fractional ownership of the network.  So if we discard the intrinsic value assigned to the network because ownership of the currency provides no ownership of the network, what is the intrinsic value of the virtual currency itself?

[james22]

12 minutes ago, tooskinneejs said:

. . . what is the intrinsic value of the virtual currency itself?

 

What's the intrinsic value of a dollar bill?

[TwoCitiesCapital]

30 minutes ago, tooskinneejs said:

Bitcoin is a virtual currency.  Owning it gives you no ownership of the network of computers on which transactions are recorded.  You asserted the currency's value was based on fractional ownership of the network.  So if we discard the intrinsic value assigned to the network because ownership of the currency provides no ownership of the network, what is the intrinsic value of the virtual currency itself?

 

You're telling me the value of Meta/Facebook/Instagram is in the computers and not in the social network that was built? 

 

The social network is people. Meta just owns the brand that ring fences it all in and limits the ability for others to tap that and profit from it. 

 

Bitcoin? No such ring fence. Ownership of the coin gives you access to the network. The network is the individual users - not the computers.

 

Miners and nodes play an important role - but are useless and wasted resources without the people/network. 

[Fly]

 

 

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20250423962305/en/Tether-SoftBank-Group-and-Jack-Mallers-Launch-Twenty-One-a-Bitcoin-native-Company-Through-a-Business-Combination-With-Cantor-Equity-Partners

[james22]

3 minutes ago, Fly said:

 

 

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20250423962305/en/Tether-SoftBank-Group-and-Jack-Mallers-Launch-Twenty-One-a-Bitcoin-native-Company-Through-a-Business-Combination-With-Cantor-Equity-Partners

 

 

Competitor?

 

MSTR holds 538,200 bitcoins.

[TwoCitiesCapital]

On 4/17/2025 at 11:15 AM, TwoCitiesCapital said:

 

 

 

Inflows yesterday were nearly 12k BTC. We're also significantly positive the day before. 

 

To put that scale into perspective - the YTD average of all the daily net flows is ~23 BTC per day. 

[Fly]

1 hour ago, james22 said:

 

Competitor?

 

MSTR holds 538,200 bitcoins.

They are both on the same team. 

[tooskinneejs]

3 hours ago, TwoCitiesCapital said:

 

You're telling me the value of Meta/Facebook/Instagram is in the computers and not in the social network that was built? 

 

The social network is people. Meta just owns the brand that ring fences it all in and limits the ability for others to tap that and profit from it. 

 

Bitcoin? No such ring fence. Ownership of the coin gives you access to the network. The network is the individual users - not the computers.

 

Miners and nodes play an important role - but are useless and wasted resources without the people/network. 

Owning Meta gives you ownership of a fractional interest in their social media networks and the networks generates cash flow from advertising.  Owning BTC gives you no ownership of the network and the network itself generates no cash flow.

 

Saying that owning BTC gives you ownership of "the network" is like saying having funds in a DraftKings account gives you ownership of their network.  In either case, you have funds in an account but they don't convey ownership in the network.  Please tell me how I am wrong.

[TwoCitiesCapital]

33 minutes ago, tooskinneejs said:

Owning Meta gives you ownership of a fractional interest in their social media networks and the networks generates cash flow from advertising.  Owning BTC gives you no ownership of the network and the network itself generates no cash flow.

 

Saying that owning BTC gives you ownership of "the network" is like saying having funds in a DraftKings account gives you ownership of their network.  In either case, you have funds in an account but they don't convey ownership in the network.  Please tell me how I am wrong.

 

This point has been belabored to death in the 192 pages of this thread - and others. 

 

It's not really my responsibility to rehash it again. The materials are there, discussed, debated, and sources if you're genuinely curious. 

 

Not really in the mood to expend more energy having the same conversation 

[TwoCitiesCapital]

33 minutes ago, tooskinneejs said:

Owning Meta gives you ownership of a fractional interest in their social media networks and the networks generates cash flow from advertising.  Owning BTC gives you no ownership of the network and the network itself generates no cash flow.

 

Saying that owning BTC gives you ownership of "the network" is like saying having funds in a DraftKings account gives you ownership of their network.  In either case, you have funds in an account but they don't convey ownership in the network.  Please tell me how I am wrong.

 

This point has been belabored to death in the 192 pages of this thread - and others. 

 

It's not really my responsibility to rehash it again. The materials are there, discussed, debated, and sources if you're genuinely curious. 

 

Not really in the mood to expend more energy having the same conversation