Eff You Money

[bargainman]

17 minutes ago, nsx5200 said:

 

I would claim that the Dem leans too much on the side of idealistic than practical, and that is the real reason for the Dems losing, not because they're incompetent.

 

I'd add that I don't see how the Dems are any less corrupt than the Reps especially with everyone climbing over themselves to appeal to Trump's ego.  Or at the least doing everything they can to make sure he doesn't lash out at them with his bully mentality.

[TwoCitiesCapital]

11 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

LOL, I'll take the under.

 

More for me

 

 

[Dalal.Holdings]

33 minutes ago, TwoCitiesCapital said:

 

I'm not saying you should pencil in 50% into perpetuity - but the network adoption and estimated growth curves supports 40-50% pretty easily for the next several years. 

 

Ah yes, the ever elusive "network adoption"

[cubsfan]

40 minutes ago, nsx5200 said:

 

I would claim that the Dem leans too much on the side of idealistic than practical, and that is the real reason for the Dems losing, not because they're incompetent.

 

The Democratic party is totally lost. They are losing their base, which is all self inflicted.

They can't admit they've done anything wrong - like totally alienating the country.

 

Even the liberals are breathing a sigh of relief - the loon wing of the party are out of power - now we can get back to some normalcy. 

 

 

[TwoCitiesCapital]

13 minutes ago, Dalal.Holdings said:

 

Ah yes, the ever elusive "network adoption"

 

Not sure what you mean by "elusive". We have measurements of network adoption. 

 

Both the # of active wallets as well as transaction throughput/value are growing and have exceeded the growth rates of the internet...and that doesn't capture individual transactions over the lightning network or those batched by CEXs or ETFs. 

 

There's nothing "elusive" about it - we witness increased network adoption basically every calendar year. 

[Dalal.Holdings]

52 minutes ago, TwoCitiesCapital said:

 

Not sure what you mean by "elusive". We have measurements of network adoption. 

 

Both the # of active wallets as well as transaction throughput/value are growing and have exceeded the growth rates of the internet...and that doesn't capture individual transactions over the lightning network or those batched by CEXs or ETFs. 

 

There's nothing "elusive" about it - we witness increased network adoption basically every calendar year. 

 

This is just a function of more people putting their capital in Bitcoin. It has zero to do with people actually transacting/using it for legitimate transactions (unless you want to count illegal activities and money laundering as legitimate)

[james22]

3 minutes ago, Dalal.Holdings said:

This is just a function of more people putting their capital in Bitcoin.

 

Do you believe bitcoin is more or less risky at $100k than $10k?

[TwoCitiesCapital]

7 minutes ago, Dalal.Holdings said:

 

This is just a function of more people putting their capital in Bitcoin. It has zero to do with people actually transacting/using it for legitimate transactions (unless you want to count illegal activities and money laundering as legitimate)

 

I see you've done your research on the topic. BTC is only for criminals! I had hoped to hide the criminal activity from less astute onlookers!

 

I concede defeat...

[TwoCitiesCapital]

11 minutes ago, james22 said:

 

Do you believe bitcoin is more or less risky at $100k than $10k?

 

The first time it hit $10k we had ~10 million addresses holding non-zero BTC value.

Now there are over 18 million which doesn't count anyone who has proxy exposure via ETFs. 

 

To argue it is riskier at $100k than $10k, one has to make the case that 8 million MORE people are wrong today than one thought was wrong in 2019...after 5-years of additional data suggests those 10 million wallets were correct. 

 

#LindyEffect

Edited December 31, 2024 by TwoCitiesCapital

[Dalal.Holdings]

According to its proponents, Bitcoin is like no other asset: the higher the price goes, the lower the risk goes. Wow !

 

Imagine replacing "bitcoin" with any other stock/asset and using this logic.

[james22]

3 minutes ago, Dalal.Holdings said:

Bitcoin is like no other asset: the higher the price goes, the lower the risk goes.

 

The  chance of bitcoin going from $10k to $0 was greater than zero.

 

The chance of bitcoin going from $100k (and backed by Blackrock) to $0 is ZERO-POINT-ZERO.

 

3 minutes ago, Dalal.Holdings said:

Imagine replacing "bitcoin" with any other stock/asset and using this logic.

 

Imagine believing bitcoin is anything like a stock or non-finite commodity.

Edited December 31, 2024 by james22

[73 Reds]

15 minutes ago, james22 said:

 

The  chance of bitcoin going from $10k to $0 was greater than zero.

 

The chance of bitcoin going from $100k (and backed by Blackrock) to $0 is ZERO-POINT-ZERO.

 

 

Imagine believing bitcoin is anything like a stock or non-finite commodity.

Yet what percentage of folks would be no more inclined to buy BTC at $10k then they would at today's price?   I do enjoy the banter here on this board but truly wonder how many minds will be changed at the end of the day.  And if something even "better" should come along?  Then what?

[Dalal.Holdings]

Everyone who wants to buy Bitcoin now can. ETFs galore. People can now put their retirements in it. All the prospective capital that was waiting for an easy way in is now in. 

 

I'm of the view that this is bearish (not bullish) believe it or not...but then again, I have no real skin in the game.

 

Anyway, I'm out and I tire of arguing with crypto guys because crypto can do no wrong and all criticism is considered heresy.

 

Happy New Year !

[Blake Hampton]

Back in the spring of 1720, Sir Isaac Newton owned shares in the South Sea Company, the hottest stock in England. Sensing that the market was getting out of hand, Newton dumped his South Sea shares, pocketing a 100% profit totaling £7,000. But just months later, swept up in the wild enthusiasm of the market, Newton jumped back in at a much higher price — and lost £20,000 (or more than $6 million in [2023–2024’s] money. For the rest of his life, he forbade anyone to speak the words ‘South Sea’ in his presence.
 

 

Shit ain't new.

Edited December 31, 2024 by Blake Hampton

[james22]

1 hour ago, 73 Reds said:

Yet what percentage of folks would be no more inclined to buy BTC at $10k then they would at today's price?   I do enjoy the banter here on this board but truly wonder how many minds will be changed at the end of the day. 

 

Probably something like any adoption curve:

 

Innovators: The first 2.5% of a group to adopt a new idea, and are open to risk and exploration

Early adopters: Enthusiastic about new ideas and willing to champion them - 13.5%

Early majority: More deliberate in adoption, influenced by feedback from early groups - 34%

Late majority: Skeptical about innovations, adopting only after the majority have tried them - 34%

Laggards: Last to adopt, typically resistant to change - 16%

 

I wasn't interested until the ETFs came out.

 

Others (Early majority) won't until something else ($100k, SBR, etc., or feedback from early groups) convinces them its viable.

 

Many (Late majority) won't until their advisor recommends it.

 

1 hour ago, 73 Reds said:

And if something even "better" should come along?  Then what?

 

Once adopted, stores of value don't have competitors. Gold didn't for 5,000 years.

 

Can you say that about any company you own?

[Gregmal]

Bitcoin for its entire existence has been summed up as believers spreading the word because they’ve made a fortune vs non believers making fun of them for not making the fortune “the right way”. 

[73 Reds]

10 minutes ago, james22 said:

 

Probably something like any adoption curve:

 

Innovators: The first 2.5% of a group to adopt a new idea, and are open to risk and exploration

Early adopters: Enthusiastic about new ideas and willing to champion them - 13.5%

Early majority: More deliberate in adoption, influenced by feedback from early groups - 34%

Late majority: Skeptical about innovations, adopting only after the majority have tried them - 34%

Laggards: Last to adopt, typically resistant to change - 16%

 

I wasn't interested until the ETFs came out.

 

Others (Early majority) won't until something else ($100k, SBR, etc., or feedback from early groups) convinces them its viable.

 

Many (Late majority) won't until their advisor recommends it.

 

 

Once adopted, stores of value don't have competitors. Gold didn't for 5,000 years.

 

Can you say that about any company you own?

That's just it - gold is fully "adapted" and has been a poor investment.  Same with pretty much any commodity or for that matter any currency.  I can use currencies and commodities while having no interest in investing in them.   I'm not alone.  People that do have an interest have been investing in these type things since their inception/discovery but to what end?  At the beginning of my professional lifetime, much of the technology we use today could not even be imagined.  Who says BTC might not be a blip in history 10 years from now?  

Edited December 31, 2024 by 73 Reds
missed line

[james22]

1 hour ago, Dalal.Holdings said:

Everyone who wants to buy Bitcoin now can. ETFs galore. People can now put their retirements in it. All the prospective capital that was waiting for an easy way in is now in. 

 

That's not how adoption works.

 

 

 

Or even accurate. Many of the wirehouses, regional broker-dealers, and institutions haven't yet turned on.

 

Try buying a BTC ETF from Vanguard, for example.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2024/02/14/bitwise-matt-hougan-dacfp-ric-edelman-growing-adoption-of-spot-bitcoin-etfs.html

 

Most RIAs aren't offering yet either.

 

They manage $8T.

 

75% of them plan to allocate an average of 2.5% to the bitcoin ETFs.

 

That's $150B demand.

 

 

 

[james22]

15 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

That's just it - gold is fully "adapted" and has been a poor investment.  Same with pretty much any commodity or for that matter any currency.  I can use currencies and commodities while having no interest in investing in them.   I'm not alone. 

 

The money is made during the adoption phase.

 

And you'd have done very well investing in the gold ETFs once introduced.

 

15 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

People that do have an interest have been investing in these type things since their inception/discovery but to what end? 

 

What other new asset class has been created in our lifetime? 

 

But fortunes have been made in other digital transformations: Amazon (commerce), Google (information), etc.

 

15 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Who says BTC might not be a blip in history 10 years from now?  

 

Anyone familiar with the technology? And how stores of value, once locked-in, don't change.

Edited December 31, 2024 by james22

[james22]

1 hour ago, Blake Hampton said:

Back in the spring of 1720, Sir Isaac Newton owned shares in the South Sea Company, the hottest stock in England. Sensing that the market was getting out of hand, the great physicist muttered that he ‘could calculate the motions of the heavenly bodies, but not the madness of the people.’ Newton dumped his South Sea shares, pocketing a 100% profit totaling £7,000. But just months later, swept up in the wild enthusiasm of the market, Newton jumped back in at a much higher price — and lost £20,000 (or more than $6 million in [2023–2024’s] money. For the rest of his life, he forbade anyone to speak the words ‘South Sea’ in his presence.
 

 

Shit ain't new.

 

Mommy, why does Daddy get upset if anyone mentions Bitcoin?

 

Is it because we're poor?

[73 Reds]

1 minute ago, james22 said:

 

The money is made during the adoption phase.

 

And you'd have done very well investing in the gold ETFs once introduced.

 

 

What other new asset class has been created in our lifetime? 

 

But fortunes have been made in other digital transformations: Amazon (commerce), Google (information), etc.

 

 

Anyone familiar with the technology? And how stores of value, once locked-in, don't change.

Its not a new asset class.  Its another (inferior, for my purposes) way of exchange.  Google and Amazon make my point - they provide services and generate something called "profits".  Gold ETFs track the price of gold.  Over any duration in history, when has gold been a competitive investment?   I'm not arguing that BTC won't be adopted by some, perhaps even many.  My argument is with the price at any given time.  It is a figment of a very small number of people's vivid imaginations until eventually reality takes hold.   

[james22]

5 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Its not a new asset class. 

 

 

Etc, etc.

[Luke]

I miss the time when Crypto wasnt there and investors would focus on discussing businesses. Can @james22 etc stop infecting every thread with this bitcoin, microstrategy stuff and stick to their own threads like cryptocurrencies or the microstrategy thread? Thanks. Its getting obnoxious.

[Paarslaars]

1 hour ago, Luke said:

I miss the time when Crypto wasnt there and investors would focus on discussing businesses. Can @james22 etc stop infecting every thread with this bitcoin, microstrategy stuff and stick to their own threads like cryptocurrencies or the microstrategy thread? Thanks. Its getting obnoxious.

 

If people like you would stop entering the crypto/mstr thread to be obnoxious, maybe he would.

[james22]

5 hours ago, Luke said:

I miss the time when Crypto wasnt there and investors would focus on discussing businesses. Can @james22 etc stop infecting every thread with this bitcoin, microstrategy stuff and stick to their own threads like cryptocurrencies or the microstrategy thread? Thanks. Its getting obnoxious.

 

LOL  You'd know obnoxious.

 

I only reply to bitcoin posts in threads other than the named. I didn't introduce it here.

 

And investors should focus on making (eff you) money, not discussing businesses.

 

They'll miss opportunities otherwise.