President-Elect Trump trades

[Gregmal]

7 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

so if someone owns Bitcoin, and they want it to go up in price (which I assume they would), they would have a vested interest in making it more popular (or getting more people to adopt it), correct?  I'll stop here for now.  Thank you Greg.

I mean isn’t that technically the case with anything you can exchange for value? I personally don’t think that needs to occur, but it’s certainly not specific to Bitcoin. I’ve seen Apple trade higher on an analyst upgrade…who cares?

[Buckeye]

22 minutes ago, thowed said:

BTW - everything (well, most of it) about this thread feels like the sort of sh1tposting nonsense I'd expect now that Trump's back.  JFC. (I'm not a Democrat, before anyone starts, just anti-idiot).

Thowed, this has been partially (or mostly) my fault:( And for that I am sorry.  I am genuinely interested in trying to make sure I understand Bitcoin correctly.  It seems like I may be closer to the end:)  Sorry again....I hope to restore this thread's messaging back to the Trump trades.

Edited 12 hours ago by Buckeye

[mcliu]

Gold does have many applications, but the majority of its value is derived from it being a store of value.

Human beings like gold because it cannot be replicated and there's a finite amount.

 

In some ways bitcoin is similar. I guess Bitcoin is not really a coin per se, but a ledger? While it's possible to make bitcoin 2.0 and bitcoin 3.0 with the exact features as Bitcoin, the network effect makes the Bitcoin ledger unique. 

 

I guess with gold, it's literally impossible to find a great substitute with similar or better properties in the physical world.

 

While with bitcoin, it is possible to create digital alternatives that one day may supersede it.. Like if people started believing in Litecoin or dogecoin and view that ledger as the true arbiter of what you own.. But network effects are difficult to break. If everyone believes the bitcoin ledge..

 

 

[Buckeye]

2 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

I mean isn’t that technically the case with anything you can exchange for value? I personally don’t think that needs to occur, but it’s certainly not specific to Bitcoin. I’ve seen Apple trade higher on an analyst upgrade…who cares?

Whoa, you lost me there Greg, sorry.  Let's forget about the comparisons for now because that's where I start to get lost. 

 

If someone owns Bitcoin, and they want it to go up in price (which I assume they would), they would have a vested interest in making it more popular (or getting more people to adopt it), correct?

 

[Buckeye]

5 minutes ago, mcliu said:

Gold does have many applications, but the majority of its value is derived from it being a store of value.

Human beings like gold because it cannot be replicated and there's a finite amount.

 

In some ways bitcoin is similar. I guess Bitcoin is not really a coin per se, but a ledger? While it's possible to make bitcoin 2.0 and bitcoin 3.0 with the exact features as Bitcoin, the network effect makes the Bitcoin ledger unique. 

 

I guess with gold, it's literally impossible to find a great substitute with similar or better properties in the physical world.

 

While with bitcoin, it is possible to create digital alternatives that one day may supersede it.. Like if people started believing in Litecoin or dogecoin and view that ledger as the true arbiter of what you own.. But network effects are difficult to break. If everyone believes the bitcoin ledge..

 

 

Ok great, most of what you have said is your opinion, but you are comparing Gold which has been around 5000 years (and all of that that comes with it) to Bitcoin that has been around for 15 years, which is a difference of 4985 years.  So how are they the same?

 

Too bad Gold can't speak for itself, because it's 5000 history has been co-opted by the Ho's with their 15 year old digital coin.  That's a little weird to me, isn't it for you? 

Edited 12 hours ago by Buckeye

[Gregmal]

1 minute ago, Buckeye said:

Whoa, you lost me there Greg, sorry.  Let's forget about the comparisons for now because that's where I start to get lost. 

 

If someone owns Bitcoin, and they want it to go up in price (which I assume they would), they would have a vested interest in making it more popular (or getting more people to adopt it), correct?

 

I don’t think so; I owned it for years, really never felt inclined to do that. Just owned it and let time do its thing. My thesis involved the product being institutionalized which largely occurred.
 

People talking about something that’s interesting to them isn’t the same as stock promotion, which is what you’re talking about, and again, stock promotion isn’t something specific to bitcoin. 

[mcliu]

17 hours ago, TwoCitiesCapital said:

 

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "collapse". I've held it through the last two 75% crashes in 2020 and again in 2022. Held and added. 

 

Not sure if that answers your question, but also not sure what you mean by collapse to have a better one. 

 

 

BTC will do to gold what gold did to silver. It will de-monetize it. It doesn't mean gold is going to zero - it means BTC will eat it's monetary premium and gold will be more akin to silver (perhaps the historical relationship of gold and silver will re-assert itself now that they're both in equal footing as non-monetary assets). I also believe BTC is eating the monetary premiums of fiat currencies around the world. 

 

 

 

I'm happy to answer DMs on this from those with genuine interest, or take it to the crypto thread, but at this point I think we're derailing the thread and making it harder for other more-related conversations to occur

Thanks, appreciate the response. How do you get comfortable with BTC taking this role instead of a different coin/ledger or a new emerging technology in the future?

[Buckeye]

1 minute ago, Gregmal said:

I don’t think so; I owned it for years, really never felt inclined to do that. Just owned it and let time do its thing. My thesis involved the product being institutionalized which largely occurred.
 

People talking about something that’s interesting to them isn’t the same as stock promotion, which is what you’re talking about, and again, stock promotion isn’t something specific to bitcoin. 

Huh, interesting that you are not following me Greg.  Can you please define "institutionalized" as used in your sentence?

[mcliu]

3 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Ok great, most of what you have said is your opinion, but you are comparing Gold which has been around 5000 years (and all of that that comes with it) to Bitcoin that has been around for 15 years, which is a difference of 4985 years.  So how are they the same?

 

Too bad Gold can't speak for itself, because it's 5000 history has been co-opted by the Ho's with their 15 year old digital coin.  That's a little weird to me, isn't it for you? 

Yeah this is true. I have no idea and have no skin in the game. Just trying to learn about this subject.

 

I think the counterargument (to gold's long track record) is that once humans invented lightbulbs, people stopped using candles? Fires were probably the main source of light at night for hundreds of thousands of years, but it got replaced by newer technologies.

[Gregmal]

3 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Huh, interesting that you are not following me Greg.  Can you please define "institutionalized" as used in your sentence?

That supply and demand would accelerate because at the institutional level you would see adoption, ie ETF, futures, etc. 

 

It seems you are trying to pigeonhole the entire BTC bull case into simply "stock promotion". But even there, its not really much of anything controversial; that's like saying Apple shareholders will benefit from the promotion and adoption of the iPhone. Yea, thats how all this stuff works. Whats the problem?

[Buckeye]

14 minutes ago, mcliu said:

Yeah this is true. I have no idea and have no skin in the game. Just trying to learn about this subject.

 

I think the counterargument (to gold's long track record) is that once humans invented lightbulbs, people stopped using candles? Fires were probably the main source of light at night for hundreds of thousands of years, but it got replaced by newer technologies.

Hello Mcliu, thank you for your reply.  In this instance I am trying to point out that the Ho's use all of these comparisons (Gold, Picasso, Currency), even though none of them exactly apply, to lend credence to their worthless, meaningless digital coin.  It's a communication technique as old as time.  And my opinion that it is deceitful if you own Bitcoin.  That's all.  

Edited 11 hours ago by Buckeye

[Buckeye]

7 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

That supply and demand would accelerate because at the institutional level you would see adoption, ie ETF, futures, etc. 

 

It seems you are trying to pigeonhole the entire BTC bull case into simply "stock promotion". But even there, its not really much of anything controversial; that's like saying Apple shareholders will benefit from the promotion and adoption of the iPhone. Yea, thats how all this stuff works. Whats the problem?

Damn Greg, I feel like you are with me for a second and then I lose you.  One last attempt...

 

James owns Bitcoin, and James spends tons of time posting all kinds of posts getting people interested in and learning about Bitcoin.

 

Greg owns St. Joe, and Greg spends tons of time posting all kinds of posts getting people interested in and learning about St. Joe.

 

In this scenario, is what James is doing and what Greg is doing the same?

 

Please give me a one word answer if you can.   Thank you!

Edited 11 hours ago by Buckeye

[Longnose]

2 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Damn Greg, I feel like you are with me for a second and then I lose you.  One last attempt...

 

James owns Bitcoin, and James spends tons of time posting all kinds of posts getting people interested in and learning about Bitcoin.

 

Greg owns St. Joe, and Greg spends tons of time posting all kinds of posts getting people interested in and learning about St. Joe.

 

In this scenario, is what James is doing and what Greg is doing the same?

 

Please give me a one word answer if you can.   Thank you!

Advocating

[Buckeye]

8 minutes ago, Longnose said:

Advocating

Sure they are both advocating, but is each of them advocating for the thing that they own (BTC for James and JOE for Greg), the same thing, in your opinion?

[UK]

1 hour ago, Paarslaars said:

To anyone who wanted to discuss other trump trades: sorry I brought this one up.

[Gregmal]

3 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Damn Greg, I feel like you are with me for a second and then I lose you.  One last attempt...

 

James owns Bitcoin, and James spends tons of time posting all kinds of posts getting people interested in and learning about Bitcoin.

 

Greg owns St. Joe, and Greg spends tons of time posting all kinds of posts getting people interested in and learning about St. Joe.

 

In this scenario, is what James is doing and what Greg is doing the same?

 

Please give me a one word answer if you can.   Thank you!

Talking about investments that interest them?.... I dont get it LOL. I dont think I'd spend much time on something I didnt own or that didnt interest me. Nor do I see whats so devious about that? 

 

Again it seems you are asking a lot of questions, seeking a specific answer, and not really acknowledging other counter points. You seem to want to conclude that the only way Bitcoin has any value is via stock promotion. 

[gfp]

One thing we can all agree on is that Bitcoin is a parking place for capital.  Some might think it's a good parking place and some might think it's a dangerous parking place but it helps people understand what it is better if you drop the whole "currency" tag.  It is not a security, it doesn't need to be a currency, it can just be property - a parking place for capital.  There is a lot of capital out there.  It all has to sit down in a chair every night when the music stops.

[changegonnacome]

3 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

OK, but it is possible to "get it" with collectibles, sports and entertainment franchises, etc... and still not comprehend BTC.

 

Not really I'm with @Gregmal - things are 'worth' what people will pay for them (obviously).....whether its BTC, gold or a baseball card.......certain items without underlying cash flows......are pure games in predicting future mass psychology/interst which drives future supply/demand which drives price.......will an artist's reputation grow in time driving future demand such that their art will appreciate in value or not etc.

 

Indeed even things with cash flows.....need to be assessed for future demand...which is a function of mass psychological attidudes.....i.e. is this a product or service that will be prized as highly or not in the future. 

 

A corset manufacturer in the 1800's had intrinsic value based on its cash flows.......but that intrinsic value was predicated on corsets remaining an item of fashion value in the minds of society....it turned, over time, that value went to almost zero.

 

BTC is like this.......its a game in predicting future mass psychological attitudes towards it....the story and its ability to resonate is the value if you we're trying to pinpoint it............ its why finding out Satoshi was a 15yr old obese dork kid is not entertained by the believers......as it diminishes the story...........BTC'ers say we're early....7% of the US population have been interested enough in the 'story' to participate by purchasing BTC in some form or another.....you need only a view on whether the adoption rate will increase or decrease over time to have a view on the future price path......for what its worth.......BTC looks like a story where all the big catalysts have already played out.....but I've never been good at guessing future mass psychology re: assets with zero discernible cash flows today......not a game I'm good at so I dont play.....but it doesn't invalid it as means by which to speculate.

[Value_Added]

27 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

Sure they are both advocating, but is each of them advocating for the thing that they own (BTC for James and JOE for Greg), the same thing, in your opinion?

Yes.  The true believers of bitcoin have done the research and have an opinion of its future value the same as Greg has done with JOE.  Anyone that does the work should be able to speak about what they own and argue for or against it without being called a promoter.  They put the time in so why do you care if they argue to the benefit of what they own especially if they believe in it?  It’s their money…and there’s noone forcing you to spend your money to bet on their beliefs and understanding. There’s probably a stock in your portfolio that many would think you’re wrong about and see it as pure speculation.  Where does it end?  Who cares how to value bitcoin?  If you don’t like it, don’t buy it.  There’s more than one path to riches and bankruptcy.  Valuation of any asset whether it cash flows or not is pure speculation especially given the fact that time is always a factor…the key is making money based on your understanding of the investment during that timeline.

Edited 11 hours ago by Value_Added

[Buckeye]

39 minutes ago, Gregmal said:

Talking about investments that interest them?.... I dont get it LOL. I dont think I'd spend much time on something I didnt own or that didnt interest me. Nor do I see whats so devious about that? 

 

Again it seems you are asking a lot of questions, seeking a specific answer, and not really acknowledging other counter points. You seem to want to conclude that the only way Bitcoin has any value is via stock promotion. 

Ok Greg, sounds like your answer is yes?  I hope I have not misunderstood you.  And I apologize for dragging you down this rabbit hole with me.  But thanks for sticking with me.

 

My answer to the question would be No.  I would say that the two are very different. But I am questioning my own logic.

 

I would say that James has a financial incentive to advocate because that is the ONLY way his investment in Bitcoin works (goes up in price).  He needs to get more people into the boat, to adopt Bitcoin, or "institutionalized" as you say.  

 

Whereas Greg, you are advocating for St. Joe, but getting more people to buy St. Joe (in the Joe Boat:) is not the ONLY way your St. Joe goes up in price (or value, but these two terms gets a little muddy in this instance).  What I have been trying to say, or understand, is that at the end of the day, Greg's returns in St. Joe are going to come from St. Joe, versus James returns which are ONLY going to only come from other people, like Buckeye, if I were to buy in.

 

So James is my Bitcoin salesman and Greg is a super smart dude who has been so very kind to share his thinking on St. Joe.

 

And that difference to me is pretty significant. The time and effort you have spent advocating for St. Joe has come from bottom of your heart, versus the time and effort James has spent comes from the bottom of his wallet.  

 

But maybe I've misled myself. 

Edited 10 hours ago by Buckeye

[Luke]

1 hour ago, John Hjorth said:

 

@Luke,

 

It's not in any way fruitful, nor constructive, here, to try to manuduce anyone, - including me -,about personal circles of competence, which I am for my part very well aware of, and attentive to.

I have laid out my argument and strongly disagree: If even highly intelligent and good investors like Li Lu only respond to bitcoin by saying "i dont understand it well enough" then that is problematic because it can give unknowing citizens the impression that the ones who own it and spread the news are very smart and this is a good thing to buy. THAT is not constructive for the investment world and dangerous too. Munger was one of the few who said it out loud and well, he deserves respect for it. Its another aspect of crypto that is noteworthy: The hesitancy of outsiders to say something against it while the price keeps rising. The price rising acts as a reinforcement mechanism for already existing buyers to buy more and at the same time discredit the critics and the party forever continues UNTIL?!

Edited 11 hours ago by Luke

[Buckeye]

26 minutes ago, gfp said:

One thing we can all agree on is that Bitcoin is a parking place for capital.  Some might think it's a good parking place and some might think it's a dangerous parking place but it helps people understand what it is better if you drop the whole "currency" tag.  It is not a security, it doesn't need to be a currency, it can just be property - a parking place for capital.  There is a lot of capital out there.  It all has to sit down in a chair every night when the music stops.

I completely agree with all of this Gfp, and I have not said anything to the contrary.  At least I don't think I have. 

[Buckeye]

20 minutes ago, Value_Added said:

Yes.  The true believers of bitcoin have done the research and have an opinion of its future value the same as Greg has done with JOE.  Anyone that does the work should be able to speak about what they own and argue for or against it without being called a promoter.  They put the time in so why do you care if they argue to the benefit of what they own especially if they believe in it?  It’s their money…and there’s noone forcing you to spend your money to bet on their beliefs and understanding. There’s probably a stock in your portfolio that many would think you’re wrong about and see it as pure speculation.  Where does it end?  Who cares how to value bitcoin?  If you don’t like it, don’t buy it.  There’s more than one path to riches and bankruptcy.  Valuation of any asset whether it cash flows or not is pure speculation especially given the fact that time is always a factor…the key is making money based on your understanding of the investment during that timeline.

Thank you for your answer Value!  Can you please read my post above (with my answer) and tell me if you feel any differently about your statements above.  Thank you!

 

Edited 10 hours ago by Buckeye

[73 Reds]

33 minutes ago, changegonnacome said:

 

Not really I'm with @Gregmal - things are 'worth' what people will pay for them (obviously).....whether its BTC, gold or a baseball card.......certain items without underlying cash flows......are pure games in predicting future mass psychology/interst which drives future supply/demand which drives price.......will an artist's reputation grow in time driving future demand such that their art will appreciate in value or not etc.

 

Indeed even things with cash flows.....need to be assessed for future demand...which is a function of mass psychological attidudes.....i.e. is this a product or service that will be prized as highly or not in the future. 

 

A corset manufacturer in the 1800's had intrinsic value based on its cash flows.......but that intrinsic value was predicated on corsets remaining an item of fashion value in the minds of society....it turned, over time, that value went to almost zero.

 

BTC is like this.......its a game in predicting future mass psychological attitudes towards it....the story and its ability to resonate is the value if you we're trying to pinpoint it............ its why finding out Satoshi was a 15yr old obese dork kid is not entertained by the believers......as it diminishes the story...........BTC'ers say we're early....7% of the US population have been interested enough in the 'story' to participate by purchasing BTC in some form or another.....you need only a view on whether the adoption rate will increase or decrease over time to have a view on the future price path......for what its worth.......BTC looks like a story where all the big catalysts have already played out.....but I've never been good at guessing future mass psychology re: assets with zero discernible cash flows today......not a game I'm good at so I dont play.....but it doesn't invalid it as means by which to speculate.

No; I can own collectibles for any number of reasons and not care at all about the price or market value.  Just saying.  (Sorry, I wasn't going to post on this subject again).

[Buckeye]

24 minutes ago, Luke said:

I have laid out my argument and strongly disagree: If even highly intelligent and good investors like Li Lu only respond to bitcoin by saying "i dont understand it well enough" then that is problematic because it can give unknowing citizens the impression that the ones who own it and spread the news are very smart and this is a good thing to buy. THAT is not constructive for the investment world and dangerous too. Munger was one of the few who said it out loud and well, he deserves respect for it. Its another aspect of crypto that is noteworthy: The hesitancy of outsiders to say something against it while the price keeps rising. The price rising acts as a reinforcement mechanism for already existing buyers to buy more and at the same time discredit the critics and the party forever continues UNTIL?!

I completely agree with this Luke!  Hope my endorsement hasn't impaired your goodwill