Btc is not a physical metal that has jewelry and industrial use. It is entirely a monetary premium asset. Would it have to go to zero if something better came along? Not necessarily. But it should, or should at least trend towards zero, if there’s a competitor that is a better store of value than btc. edit to add that things like network effect would obviously matter too.
Disagree. There's room for more than one. There will probably be a dominant one but people can use more than one.
I’ve honestly never used hunks of gold or silver in exchange for goods or services so I’d say that they have other uses but neither are money. At least from my perspective
BTC eating gold is not a foregone conclusion at this point. The macro environment with both growth AND inflation accelerating is historically a very poor performing time for gold, contrary to most investors thoughts on inflation up gold up. As it stands today you have no data to prove it. A year from now as the economic cycle plays out? yeah should be much more obvious if it's really eating gold. I disagree with your approach that is one is better than the other for store of value it will go to 0, they have different risk profiles and applications as a whole. This isn't surprising though, because your general approach has been binary throughout this entire thread. Which brings me to my central point - do you believe there is a 0% chance that ETH outperforms BTC on a 5 year horizon? I assign that probability at greater than 50%. You have indicated in all of your rebuffs, explicitly or not, that you see this as a 0% chance. If I'm wrong and you assign a non zero probability, then your communication sucks because you don't show yourself to be anything but an absolutist. That's cool if you are - but you're a maxi and history isn't kind to those thinkers (just look at the wall street clown comments on crypto over the last decade) and you should expect people to call you out. Don't say you don't care - you do, and so do most of us when we have money invested here and it depends on others valuing the same things we do so it doesn't go to 0 (no different than any market). My portfolio approach really has no relevance here. What I and others take issue with is your condescending nature, inability to hold opposing (shit, even adjacent) ideas, and really no original thoughts on what the future will bring. It's just backwards looking charts on BTC outperformance on whatever time horizon fits your narrative and not indicating that holds little value for future performance. I'm a profit maximalist as I've always said - gain more dollars than whatever the best performing asset is in USD terms. How I position myself for that is fluid based on changes in risk profiles and time horizons for separate components of my portfolio. You don't have a risk management strategy, it's just DCA into btc every week in perpetuity.
oh yeah and guess what? the institutions you are so happy are here, have risk management strategies too and they will take shit off the table. Welcome to playing their game now.
How will I survive this condescending tone?? I kid. But to your point, yes I'm aware--e.g., Ruffer put in like $750m, doubled their money, and already sold the profit at like $40k (https://www.coindesk.com/ruffer-turns-bitcoin-investment-into-750m-profit-in-under-2-months).
This is a ridiculously short sighted view on the history of money fwiw. You should read the bitcoin standard by ammous, which is like one chapter on btc and an entire book on the history of money.
I remember when BNB was like $9 thinking damn some day this shit will go up a lot, given how big Binance was getting. What in pump-n-dump hell is going on lately Binance Coin Price (BNB) $476.61
Wow had no idea BNB was worth like $470 now In 2017 I bought like $20,000 worth at $7 and sold it at $12 oops
Hey one I agree with. I disagree with his starting premise of the US dollar as global reserve currency necessarily being “patriotic”, however he’s defining that.
The dressing of Bitcoin as an egalitarian solve for inequality is cute when the top bag holders are (and will be even more so in the future) Chinese and American financial institutions. LMAO
Like - the people who will get rich off Bitcoin are educated people with capital. Which is fine BTW, I plan on taking advantage. But if anything it will just increase the inequality we already have
Yeah that’s a joke. Who’s poor and buying significant amounts of bitcoin. It’s what people who don’t live pay check to paycheck get to do
Why does it matter who the "top bag holders" are? It is in no way surprising that the early adopters in a brand new asset class would make more money than those who adopt later. If anything, btc has allowed retail to front run massive institutions for years. That's not the point. It's an open sourced system that provides an alternative saving option to every person on the planet with internet access, rich or poor. Why would it increase inequality? And why is the inquiry about "who will get rich"? It's an alternative savings system open to literally anyone. Factually wrong, particularly on the "who is poor and buying it" point given the number of users in countries facing high inflation. Not to mention it doesn't require anyone to buy "significant amounts."
Timely podcast from a 2016 ETH investor who thought it was going to solve the world and is now 100% in btc.