Nassim Taleb described Bitcoin as not just a financial bubble, but a financial bubble that is a cult. When you criticize Bitcoin and crypto, watch as people all of a sudden become hyper emotional, dramatic and defensive. It's as if you didn't just criticize a financial investment, but that you are criticizing their mom or something. I am starting to believe Nassim Taleb is right on this one.
Can you explain how one person, even satoshi, can change Bitcoin? Or are you going to change the subject to taleb bc you are caught looking ignorant?
Short and tiny amount of PTIR at 275 Short just 3 shares however will build it up to a 50 share Short position soon. Right now need some funds to put on some more naked calls.
BTC doesn't need a revenue like a stock to have value as the store-of-value that it is. That is it's service, which it offers for almost nothing. Besides that service, it allows your value to be divided into smaller bits to be sold or transferred for reasonable rates (most of the time) in a reasonable amount of time. So long as it's cryptographic strength remains unbreakable, so long as it's code remains not so easy to change, so long as the supply of new coins remains decreasing, it's value will continue to remain fairly reliable. So, if it dips 75% from an over-exuberant bull run, it will reliably recover for another cycle. It's really not the same thing to go out and print a new coin with a new name, even though almost any new coin will get some initial traction. BTC has first mover advantage, and every year it functions as coded, it gains network credibility. For example, there were many auto manufacturers at the turn of last century. More than a hundred are out of business. But we still have cars and we will still have some kind of coin a hundred years from now. Those auto manufacturers which survived till today existed between 1900 and 1920. Likewise, one of the hundreds of coins on the market right now will still exist in a hundred years. It is the speculators job to figure out which one. Hope is fading for almost every other contender except for BTC. (There can only be three or four brands remaining in any particular category of marketing, according to the book, "Positioning"). Meanwhile, those contenders flounder forward as they are typically used as options, to Bitcoins underlying. BTC goes up 1%, those contenders go up 3-5% . This too will get old (and they will fade away) as there will be more ways to leverage BTC through derivatives like futures, and it becomes clear that more complicated code is not necessarily better than Bitcoins code. Then, as it become more available to borrow currency based on BTC holdings as assets, the usefulness of BTC will continue to increase. This will become more available as this administration straightens out the rules for accounting so that the number of BTC custodians increases. None of this matters to those of us who are averse to HODLing, and go both ways. We could make money as BTC dropped to zero over three years. But if you are going to hold anything, this is one of the best things, on earth, that you could hold. I care about robust markets, semi-private holdings, 24/7 trading, low trading fees, and leverage availability. It's all there with BTC, and continually getting better, and not too many stocks can keep up. MSTR is looking attractive, just for it's volatility. I like the strong up, and strong down moves. [edit] The store-of-value service aspect is not appreciated enough. It stores value so cheaply that it appears there is no revenue. If there was a way for BTC to charge a monthly fee, like for a box in a bank, im sure lots of people would pay it, and there would be revenue. The revenue that matters is the revenue for miners, which you cannot deny exists, enough to keep enough miners interested that the coin continues to be generated and maintained. The revenue that matters is their revenue for facilitating the transfer of BTC from one address to another. So there is technically two streams of revenue in BTC. I'm not sure why this is ignored when the stock gurus of the world do analysis on this. Like any revenue, they keep it moving forward. What matters is are these revenues sufficient to keep it moving forward? So far so good.
Well, if Satoshi came back, he probably has enough BTC (and pull) to buy up sufficient number of full nodes and miners to be able to push a change on his own. It would cause a shit storm, but it would not be impossible. The whole "BTC is immutable" trope is kinda bullshit. The network has undergone multiple upgrades and bug fixes. Some of these were contested (e.g. SegWit) and resulted in forks, some were agreed upon rather quickly. Everyone agrees that the forks are, by definition, dilutive (and as of May 2024, there are over 100 Bitcoin forks in existence, with varying degrees of adoption and success). Let's be realistic. The only thing that gives value to BTC over any other random token (e.g. $TRUMP or $MELANIA) is the social network effect. Bunch of people believe that other people believe in BTC and thus it will continue to grow. A crash will happen if this belief is either (a) punctured somehow, for example, by drastic changes in crypto community or (b) people don't have the resources to hodl or (especially) buy more. PS. The religious undertones of recent investment fads are very worrisome. The fact that there are communities that reinforce wishful thinking ("diamond hands", "HODL" etc) will not end well and is very likely have real world consequences.
Just one more thought. The fact that most of these religious bubbles will end badly does not mean we should not be involved. @maxinger got it right. It's gonna create trading opportunities in both directions and that's good for traders.
You really did a callout to the "opportunity" bot? https://www.elitetrader.com/et/search/20396122/?q=opportunities&o=date&c[user][0]=153904
Yeah, his “I don’t give a fuck, this will be making me money” approach to life can be right sometimes