Eff You Money

[james22]

1 hour ago, ICUMD said:

I'm ok sitting on the sidelines watching my old fashioned dividends come in. 

 

 

1 hour ago, ICUMD said:

In the collectible category, I'd rather own a manual Porsche or rare Rolex. 

 

 

I've a 911 T allocation and collect Omegas.

[73 Reds]

13 hours ago, TwoCitiesCapital said:

 

This is precisely where you're wrong. 

 

Never before has there been a monetary asset with a perfectly inelastic supply that can't be manipulated by politicians

Never before has is been so easy to send that wealth anywhere in the world with settlement times of ~10 minutes for less than the cost of a bank wire

Never before has there been such an easy/cheap way to secure such a large portion of wealth

 

Bitcoin has plenty of unique qualities that no other "money" currently has. 

 

 

Lol

And how, exactly does any of that translate into a current price?  BTC is unique; it is perhaps the only "asset" whereas if the price were to fall by 99%, I'd be no more inclined to buy it than I would now.  

[TwoCitiesCapital]

12 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

And how, exactly does any of that translate into a current price?

 

Current price is determined by network value. There are ways to estimate this as well as expected growth of that network/value. Not so different from telephones/Internet/social media. Networks contain immense value - just in the past that was captured by private enterprise at the application level and not democratized and at the protocol level that Bitcoin allows for. 

 

Alternatively, you can ask yourself what the market capitalization of a global monetary asset should reasonably be, or what other stores of value are and what they're valued at, and then discount BTC back pending your estimate of how long it takes to get there. 

 

IMO, it remains cheap by both methods

 

12 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

 

 BTC is unique; it is perhaps the only "asset" whereas if the price were to fall by 99%, I'd be no more inclined to buy it than I would now.  

 

This says more about you than Bitcoin. 

Edited yesterday at 01:29 AM by TwoCitiesCapital

[Haryana]

[73 Reds]

11 hours ago, TwoCitiesCapital said:

 

Current price is determined by network value. There are ways to estimate this as well as expected growth of that network/value. Not so different from telephones/Internet/social media. Networks contain immense value - just in the past that was captured by private enterprise at the application level and not democratized and at the protocol level that Bitcoin allows for. 

 

Alternatively, you can ask yourself what the market capitalization of a global monetary asset should reasonably be, or what other stores of value are and what they're valued at, and then discount BTC back pending your estimate of how long it takes to get there. 

 

IMO, it remains cheap by both methods

 

 

This says more about you than Bitcoin. 

Sounds like a lot of gobble-d-gook for "there are no known metrics for valuation so I'll just make something up".  Otherwise phone companies, social media companies and internet companies all generate cash flow and revenues/profits.  Ironically proponents can't even agree on what exactly BTC is, let alone a rational way to value it.  The only way to realistically value a "monetary asset" is relative to other monetary assets.  Even so, it's not an apples to apples comparison.  Gold, for example has unique historical, cultural and social characteristics developed over thousands of years and can be used for something other than as a monetary asset.  Yet even gold has been a lousy investment, poor hedge against inflation and awful store of value as compared to other alternative investments that generate real returns.  

[Spooky]

On 12/26/2024 at 10:09 PM, flesh said:

This has come around previously. 
 

As always and at least for some people the errors are in the assumptions.
 

I have a close friend with 2m who will inherit about 750k within 5-10 years. He single 50 years old. He convinced he needs at least 2m and a house paid for.  
 

another good friend has 15 m and he’s convinced he just needs one more big exit and he’ll be done. 
 

Many here posit the idea that they’d be bored if they retired but presumably they won’t be when they retire at x age and with x wealth. 
 

I mostly retired at 34 with a net worth of 600k, 11 years ago. 450k of that in cash and retirement accounts. Rest in home equity. By mostly I mean I’ve worked about 2 full time years since then comprised of 3-6 month part time stints of 10-20 hours a week interspersed with sometime years of no work. 
 

It seemed rather obvious to me back then that I didn’t know what I would do to find meaning absent winning the money game and the socioeconomic status that came with it however that was the very problem I wanted to solve. I knew that marketing or investing was only something I did for money.. something I definitely wouldn’t do if I didn’t need the money. 
 

it took some years to fill that hole but I can honestly say there’s nothing to go back to and the cost of my precious time left would be far too high to ever spend any considerable amount of time doing abstract empty unfulfilling exercises. 
 

What I do is rock climb, dirt bike, read, spend time with my family and friends. Basically I’ve studied nearly everything  at a conceptual level and had plenty of time to climb and dirt bike and scuba around the world and with my family. 
 

Financially, I was able to do this by cutting all costs… line by line over time.. of course focusing on and learning about what I did/did not care about. I bought a cheap house back then that already had a mother in law apt in the basement. Mortgage is 1500/month and renter pays 1200/month. I didn’t get married because that would obviously change the equation and seemed ill advised considering I only wanted one child. I found a woman willing (after some convincing) to cover half of most costs. My costs are only 35k year before vacations and extras.. like a new dirt bike etc. I actually spend about 50-60k year. 

 

Net worth has tripled since then. Nobody suspects I have money and I like it that way. I never liked how people treated me when I made 1m/year in todays dollars back in 05/6/7 etc. it’s an alienating effect. For your psyche and others. 
 

in 15 years the home will be paid for and I’ll have a renter paying 2k/month plus in the apt. I’ll have zero debt and six figures income without working.

 

id suggest there’s much to discover and that waiting until your physically and mentally impaired is not the best time to do it. Just know you don’t know and you won’t until you have the time. 
 

The assumption of boredom I posit is the mistake. It’s not been grounded until you’ve experimented with the alternatives. In todays age you have to create the alternative. That’s the adventure. The adventure many throughout history had as default. That is, time. Time to wonder. 
 

Recently I jumped on the Bryan Johnson and slim land program. Longevity Olympic guys. When first presented with their ideas it seemed overwhelming and a bit ridiculous. That phase lasted months but I had the time for it to seep in. Now I’m three months into it. Perfect diet. 20/supplements a day. Health markers going from good to great. Now it’s easy and automated and inexpensive. Line by line.
 

I recently did two one arm pull ups with my right arm, a pb for me at 45, been climbing since 17. Tied my pb of two one arms with the left hand.  Set a new pb of hanging one handed off one pad edge longest time ever just yesterday while home sick with a cold. 
 

My circulation is improving rapidly and sleep as well. I’ll be taking the 800$ full bio marker test next year and see where I’m at with 300 bio markers. 
 

Point is, this was never my cup of tea before but now it is, and it’s obviously good and easy in hindsight and definitely not something I would have done while working hard. It’s clearly worthwhile, super health. 

 

What I do of course may not be what you would do, but most people will never know. 
 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for sharing Flesh. Glad that you are able to spend time doing what you enjoy. If you don't mind me asking, where do you live and how is your portfolio structured to cover the cost of living?

 

Lately I have been craving adventure, this capitalist life is getting pretty boring. 

[SharperDingaan]

37 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Sounds like a lot of gobble-d-gook for "there are no known metrics for valuation so I'll just make something up".  Otherwise phone companies, social media companies and internet companies all generate cash flow and revenues/profits.  Ironically proponents can't even agree on what exactly BTC is, let alone a rational way to value it.  The only way to realistically value a "monetary asset" is relative to other monetary assets.  Even so, it's not an apples to apples comparison.  Gold, for example has unique historical, cultural and social characteristics developed over thousands of years and can be used for something other than as a monetary asset.  Yet even gold has been a lousy investment, poor hedge against inflation and awful store of value as compared to other alternative investments that generate real returns.  

 

One can lead a horse to water, but if it will not drink there is nothing one can do ... it just dies from thirst.

 

No matter, as there are lots of other ways by which to make a gain.

 

SD

 

 

[73 Reds]

4 minutes ago, SharperDingaan said:

 

One can lead a horse to water, but if it will not drink there is nothing one can do ... it just dies from thirst.

 

No matter, as there are lots of other ways by which to make a gain.

 

SD

 

 

Yes.  Lead me to anyone who has become wealthy and retained such wealth by investing in a monetary asset.

[james22]

1 hour ago, 73 Reds said:

Sounds like a lot of gobble-d-gook for "there are no known metrics for valuation so I'll just make something up".

 

THE LIGHT SHINETH IN DARKNESS; AND THE DARKNESS COMPREHENDED IT NOT

 

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

As an almost pure Buffett disciple . . .

 

On 7/5/2024 at 7:58 AM, 73 Reds said:

 I'll only invest in highly dominant (near-monopolistic) companies with superior management, great balance sheets, and a history of successful capital allocation, innovation and profitability in most any economic cycle.  Rarely will I venture into anything else.

 

On 7/9/2024 at 3:34 PM, 73 Reds said:

As an older person with a crusty mindset, a stock literally has to jump out as something begging to be owned before I will buy.

 

Maybe BTC isn't for you?

[TwoCitiesCapital]

2 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

Sounds like a lot of gobble-d-gook for "there are no known metrics for valuation so I'll just make something up".

 

At one point - there were no known valuation metrics for EVERY investment and they were literally "just made up". Some made sense and persisted through time.

 

The methods I mentioned aren't even really new - they extend back to the advent of the telephone but don't often get applied to investments because until recent history nobody could buy a protocol at the network level. Go try to buy HTTP or TCP/IP or FTP or SMTP or etc. etc. etc. You can't. But you can buy the protocol for sending money over the internet.

 

But since you don't like, we'll ignore all of that history and just call it "made up" as if that makes it different from every other valuation method in some way. 

 

2 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

Ironically proponents can't even agree on what exactly BTC is, let alone a rational way to value it.  

 

Ironically - people can't agree on the value of stocks and how best to do it. 

 

2 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

 

The only way to realistically value a "monetary asset" is relative to other monetary assets.

 

1 BTC = 1 BTC is a fairly absolute way to value it. But you demand a price to wrap your head around that so yes - the value of ANY currency quoted in something else is always relative. Not sure why that would be a big revelation. 

 

And Bitcoin keeps buying relatively more things even while 1 BTC = 1 BTC is the absolute value. 

 

2 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

 Gold, for example has unique historical, cultural and social characteristics developed over thousands of years and can be used for something other than as a monetary asset.  

 

Gold didn't just become valuable. It was valuable that whole time and GREW in value as more and more adoption occurred. Thousands of years solidified its case as a store of value - but isn't what made it one and the people who recognized it early did better than those who recognized later.

 

Gold's returns would look a hell of a lot better had you compressed that monetary adoption to a generation, or two, instead of thousands of years. This is what I expect of Bitcoin given that information now travels near the speed of light and not by boat.

 

It is NOT gold's industrial use cases that support the $18 trillion market cap. That is mostly monetary premium. Bitcoin will be the same. Bitcoin has unique characteristics that make it superior to gold IMO. And because of that, will absorb that monetary premium IMO. 

 

2 hours ago, 73 Reds said:

 

Yet even gold has been a lousy investment, poor hedge against inflation and awful store of value as compared to other alternative investments that generate real returns.  

 

I don't need to necessarily argue with you here. I've argued gold is a terrible inflation hedge in the past suggested it is actually a hedge against negative real rates - often accompanying inflation but not always - which is why gold's history is spotted when it comes to inflation hedging success. 

 

But gold still did a hell of lot better than equities/TIPS/other commodities in the inflation shock of 2022 so I think the real question is actually why does everything still think THOSE things are inflation hedges when the "not-hedge" of gold still crushed them. 

 

1 hour ago, SharperDingaan said:

 

One can lead a horse to water, but if it will not drink there is nothing one can do ... it just dies from thirst.

 

No matter, as there are lots of other ways by which to make a gain.

 

SD

 

 

 

At this point - the posts are more for the others reading. 73 Reds has basically all but admitted that there is no price or scenario in which he would be interested and seemingly can't get behind that even things without cash flows have value as demonstrated by all of the companies generating cash flows selling those things...

Edited yesterday at 03:48 PM by TwoCitiesCapital

[73 Reds]

3 hours ago, TwoCitiesCapital said:

 

At one point - there were no known valuation metrics for EVERY investment and they were literally "just made up". Some made sense and persisted through time.

 

The methods I mentioned aren't even really new - they extend back to the advent of the telephone but don't often get applied to investments because until recent history nobody could buy a protocol at the network level. Go try to buy HTTP or TCP/IP or FTP or SMTP or etc. etc. etc. You can't. But you can buy the protocol for sending money over the internet.

 

But since you don't like, we'll ignore all of that history and just call it "made up" as if that makes it different from every other valuation method in some way. 

 

 

Ironically - people can't agree on the value of stocks and how best to do it. 

 

 

1 BTC = 1 BTC is a fairly absolute way to value it. But you demand a price to wrap your head around that so yes - the value of ANY currency quoted in something else is always relative. Not sure why that would be a big revelation. 

 

And Bitcoin keeps buying relatively more things even while 1 BTC = 1 BTC is the absolute value. 

 

 

Gold didn't just become valuable. It was valuable that whole time and GREW in value as more and more adoption occurred. Thousands of years solidified its case as a store of value - but isn't what made it one and the people who recognized it early did better than those who recognized later.

 

Gold's returns would look a hell of a lot better had you compressed that monetary adoption to a generation, or two, instead of thousands of years. This is what I expect of Bitcoin given that information now travels near the speed of light and not by boat.

 

It is NOT gold's industrial use cases that support the $18 trillion market cap. That is mostly monetary premium. Bitcoin will be the same. Bitcoin has unique characteristics that make it superior to gold IMO. And because of that, will absorb that monetary premium IMO. 

 

 

I don't need to necessarily argue with you here. I've argued gold is a terrible inflation hedge in the past suggested it is actually a hedge against negative real rates - often accompanying inflation but not always - which is why gold's history is spotted when it comes to inflation hedging success. 

 

But gold still did a hell of lot better than equities/TIPS/other commodities in the inflation shock of 2022 so I think the real question is actually why does everything still think THOSE things are inflation hedges when the "not-hedge" of gold still crushed them. 

 

 

At this point - the posts are more for the others reading. 73 Reds has basically all but admitted that there is no price or scenario in which he would be interested and seemingly can't get behind that even things without cash flows have value as demonstrated by all of the companies generating cash flows selling those things...

Agreed; in its present iteration there is no price worth buying BTC.  Would much rather own artwork, a fine piece of jewelry, or any number of items that don't generate anything other than enjoyment for its owners.

[james22]

57 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

Agreed . . .

 

LOL

 

That Growth valuation metrics don't make sense to you as a Value investor isn't surprising.

 

Doesn't mean they don't or won't persist.

 

57 minutes ago, 73 Reds said:

. . . in its present iteration there is no price worth buying BTC.

 

What BTC iteration would make it worth buying?

 

Will that iteration be significantly more or less expensive?

 

 

[bargainman]

How and why did this thread devolve into a crypto thread???  please stop!

 

back to eff you money.  Reminds me of this scene from office space

 

 

 

Mostly the second part lol.  "you don't need a million bucks to do nothing.."