her style is investing in the growth stocks. I wouldn't be surprised if her portfolio allocated more to the cryptos and crypto infrastructure.
For now, its 'Brand Name' recognition is its moat, as certain investors like to call it. Some like to also say its simplicity also counts, though I am not so sure. BTC is now regarded as 'Boomer coin' in many circles. In order to function, it still requires a lot of wasteful energy and other physical resources that instantly become obsolete and is trapped in a situation that just repeats on itself. But if you are a Bitcoin Maxi, then all this extra complexity just to mine is considered something... elegant I suppose. Maybe... just maybe Bitcoin will survive for another generation, or 100 years simply because of nostalgia or its inherent 'collector' symbol status. Some people like to over-pay 100x for antiques, even if they do their job poorly. But alas, I highly doubt this will avoid the flippening if there are no forthcoming taproot-like updates. Fun Fact: BTC actually does have a very 'primitive' way to support smart-contracts, but... it's very dubious at best.
So what? Your typical millionaire doesn't have some scrooge mcduckian vault full of liquid currency. Of that 160 trillion, a huge fraction is tied up in real estate, productive investments, non liquid accounts like 401k, etc. Assuming all the worlds millionaires decide to make themselves homeless and unemployed, to plow it all into Bitcoin, the price stops just short of 10m, and then crashes as everyone rushes for the exit, realizing that there are no greater fools left to buy at an even higher price. Meanwhile, the worlds productive assets would have been sold of at fire sale prices to people like Buffet, resulting a distribution of wealth more skewed that the world has ever seen. I think the market cap issue is one of the things that crashed that French Mississippi company. At some point, you have so much of the available liquid purchasing power tied up, that you just can't free up more to drive the price higher.
TAM You purposely missed the point, there are only 19M bitcoins in circulation, about 3-5M are lost and there are over 62M millionaires, there is not enough for each of them to have 1 bitcoin and no one is saying plow everything, a proper allocation for rich folks to gold is 2-5% so about $3-8 Trillion for that one investor class You also have to add that there are 8 Billion people in the world and only 100M own bitcoins. The biggest adoption is in emerging markets such as Africa and Latin America, look up my posting on Brazil adoption as an example 4 Billion people in the world use facebook. I'm not one of them We're going for the next milestone in the next 3-5 years for 1 Billion people to own some bitcoins TAM
Just my opinion but I would think that most millionaires are fairly conservative investors. They are already millionaires, so owning an assett just because it might go up isn't high on their list. Especially with the performance of bitcoin over the last year. I wonder how many fewer millionaires there are now as compared to last year because of the depreciation of bitcoin.
You're still calculating investable assets based on total net worth! Again, someone being a millionaire does not mean the have a checking account balance of 1 million. That may just mean they own their own house, 4 plumbing vans and a small warehouse. Yes, they could sell all that, but then they're homeless and unemployed. I didn't miss anything. The difference between there being 15M and 20M bitcoins available is inconsequential to the overall situation. The key issue is that as bitcoin becomes more and more expensive, it will have real, macroeconomic effects. There's only so much wealth available to chase a highly speculative, non-productive asset. Think about it this way: Imagine whatever you consider to be 100% market saturation is achieved. The price will obviously spike up as that happens, but what happens afterwards? What happens when everyone has 5% of their net worth in Bitcoin? Bitcoin is a nonproductive asset, so at that point it will continue to rise at the growth rate of GDP, as people continue to allocate x% of their net worth to that asset. That would be your best case scenario. Except that bitcoin is secured by nothing and there are other assets available that are secured by something, are productive, and can be expected to rise with GDP. People notice this. At that point Bitcoin it doomed. The top will have happened. All the greater fools have bought it. Now the price plummets as people realize they're taking a huge risk and aren't going to get a huge return.
Bitcoin is an insurance asset, like gold The purpose for some investors is to have a decentralized, censorship-resistant, not subject to central bank debasement, protected from seizure or freezing by authoritarian government, hard money asset Bitcoin is the hardest money in the history of the world Read my post above I only pointed out a certain investor class that may wish to allocate to bitcoin, even if 10% of them decide to own 1 bitcoin, it will still cause a supply shock as not enough for them to do so without driving the price very high There are 8 billion other people in the world. TAM Bitcoin is secured by over 200 Trillion Million hashes per second of computing power We're in a crypto winter, a bear market, when the bull market comes back, it will be good to reflect back on these posts calling the top for Bitcoin will never be surpassed again I was here in the middle of the bear market 2018-2019, seen these same types of posts before