Bitcoin....who's gotten into it?

[J. Barron DeJong]

MVRV stands for “market value to realized value.”

Latest value here shows RV at 38% of market cap. Which is not great considering there’s no revenue being generated, so money in is what is available to be taken out.

https://cryptoquant.com/asset/btc/ch...yle=line&ema=0

Average coin price of $35k.

[The Nuclear Option]

Still no argument. Price go up= good

"begging"

[byates1]

TNO just found this thread and BTC a couple weeks ago.

[byates1]

.

Sent from my Pixel 8 Pro using Tapatalk

[J. Barron DeJong]

TNO just found this thread and BTC a couple weeks ago.

And yet he already has a better understanding of the situation than you or stale. Interesting…

[bobz]

Latest value here shows RV at 38% of market cap. Which is not great considering there’s no revenue being generated, so money in is what is available to be taken out.

https://cryptoquant.com/asset/btc/ch...yle=line&ema=0

Average coin price of $35k.

How much actual money (net) has been parked in BTC is an interesting question, but I don't think it's all that meaningful in terms of the asset's appropriate value.

What would that number be for, let's say, AAPL? I'm pretty sure the bulk of the shares originally came from stock offerings at a tiny fraction of the current share price. AAPL's shares value (on balance) is a relatively small number of original dollars plus a sea of cap-gains gravy (which is indeed mostly "available to be taken out", since other buyers would surely step up); so what.

[The Nuclear Option]

Try again Bitconner

TNO just found this thread and BTC a couple weeks ago.

[J. Barron DeJong]

How much actual money (net) has been parked in BTC is an interesting question, but I don't think it's all that meaningful it is in terms of the asset's appropriate value.

What would that number be for, let's say, AAPL? I'm pretty sure the bulk of the shares originally came from stock offerings at a tiny fraction of the current share price. AAPL's shares value (on balance) is a relatively small number of original dollars plus a sea of cap-gains gravy; so what.

AAPL is currently trading at a price to earnings ratio of 40.

It’s stock price has gone up as its earnings have gone up. People are willing to buy the stock at a higher price to capture those higher expected future Apple earnings for themselves.

BTC has no earnings, just costs, so call it negative earnings. So it’s trading at, what, infinite PE?

[The Nuclear Option]

BTC has no earnings, just costs, so call it negative earnings. So it’s trading at, what, infinite PE?

They’re mostly too stupid to even argue the case, so I’ll try to devils advocate it

The earnings ARE the price increase. You’re not paying for “earnings” in a traditional sense, you’re only buying the speculative price increase.
So if you drink the koolaid and believe that the price will increase to $1,000,000 or more then the current P/E is about 100,000/900,000 or 1/9
Even if it only goes up to 200k that’s 1/2!!!

One hell of a good deal. What other asset can you get for that P/E? The Dow Jones is sitting at 27/1 or so. Hell Tesla is at 128/1

What kind of fool would buy that, I mean other than the chance of it going to $50k or $10k, but dont FUDD, just HODL

[The Nuclear Option]

* what kind of fool would NOT buy that?

[bobz]

AAPL is currently trading at a price to earnings ratio of 40.

It’s stock price has gone up as its earnings have gone up. People are willing to buy the stock at a higher price to capture those higher expected future Apple earnings for themselves.

BTC has no earnings, just costs, so call it negative earnings. So it’s trading at, what, infinite PE?

Well sure. That's exactly why Apple's stock price would recover (post-panic) if a big chunk of its shareholders decided to sell out during a short period of time. And that's exactly what's scary (to some people) about BTC; if some BTC "gorillas" decided to liquidate, the post-panic price wouldn't be any kind of bargain "floor" at all.

My point is, that that original dollar cost of shares has nothing to do with how much cash money is available to be wallowed in by sellers. Interesting, but not all that relevant.

[J. Barron DeJong]

They’re mostly too stupid to even argue the case, so I’ll try to devils advocate it

The earnings ARE the price increase. You’re not paying for “earnings” in a traditional sense, you’re only buying the speculative price increase.
So if you drink the koolaid and believe that the price will increase to $1,000,000 or more then the current P/E is about 100,000/900,000 or 1/9
Even if it only goes up to 200k that’s 1/2!!!

One hell of a good deal. What other asset can you get for that P/E? The Dow Jones is sitting at 27/1 or so. Hell Tesla is at 128/1

What kind of fool would buy that, I mean other than the chance of it going to $50k or $10k, but dont FUDD, just HODL

Have you ever read about the ‘Keynsian Beaty Contest’?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyn...beauty_contest

I think it got made famous from ‘A Random Walk Down Wallstreet’.

If a stock’s price was determined just on the fundamentals of current and future profits (assuming future profits were actually knowable) then you could set a perfect price for that stock.

But then there’s the aspect of price movements based on where you think other people think the price is going, not on hard data like profits, which is the component you’re talking about.

The thing is, with Bitcoin that first component is a negative number, and always will be. The the entire premise of profiting off of Bitcoin relies on the second component of predicting that the price will move in your favor sometime in the future, based not on fundamental value of Bitcoin, but on enough other people thinking that too, so the price can rise.

Well sure. That's exactly why Apple's stock price would recover (post-panic) if a big chunk of its shareholders decided to sell out during a short period of time. And that's exactly what's scary (to some people) about BTC; if some BTC "gorillas" decided to liquidate, the post-panic price wouldn't be any kind of bargain "floor" at all.

My point is, that that original dollar cost of shares has nothing to do with how much cash money is available to be wallowed in by sellers. Interesting, but not all that relevant.

The difference is that with a stock the ‘money available’ isn’t fixed, it’s a flow that changes based on company profits. With Bitcoin the ‘money available’ is whatever amount people have paid for Bitcoin, minus the amount that miners have taken out.

[J. Barron DeJong]

Maybe another way to think about this:

If Apple had never gone public, there would be no AAPL shares to buy, so no ‘investor money’ in the pool. But Apple as a company would still be an immensely valuable thing. It has massive profits.

Conversely, if the Bitcoin network was private and you didn’t have ‘investor money’, you’d have a ton of costs to keep the thing running… and that’s it.

[shroom]

IIRC our resident finance expert mr landers told me we would not have iphones without the stock market

[J. Barron DeJong]

IIRC our resident finance expert mr landers told me we would not have iphones without the stock market

Well fuck.

[J. Barron DeJong]

byates and stale, this you?



https://bsky.app/profile/mckay4senat.../3ldtjfmshts2q

[byates1]

What's a cryptocurrency?

[J. Barron DeJong]

https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/america-the-addicted

[bobz]

Good piece by Krugman there. Funny how I never even noticed the Crypto tab on my Venmo app. I did recently notice that the cash-in-your-miscellaneous-couch-cushion-change machine in the supermarket is on the crypto bandwagon now though. Crypto speculation is on its way to being joined at the hip with the mainstream economy. Oh great.

Another thing about financial bubbles, that Krugman didn't quite spell out, is that most of their lifecycle is spent going up. People saying that Bitcoin is probably going up from here (as even I did two months ago) are going to be right, most of the time. Lots of time for a lot of promotion and validation, and for the nay-sayers to get worn down.

[Bunion 2020]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/digital...ve-the-dollar/

[summit]

The dollar needs saving? It's as strong as it has been in a long time.

So if the US government both buys 100% of all bitcoin and Bitcoin goes to $10M, then we'd have $280T of bitcoin and nobody else would have any? And Russia is going to beat us to it with what money? It doesn't matter! BUY BTC OR BE FOREVER PRICED OUT!

Who writes this BS? Forbes? And the clickiest-baitiest clickbait titles on everything linked in that article. That is financial journalism? "capital markets renaissance" inbound!!!!!!!! FFS "Feds worst nightmare!" "BlackRock Just Quietly Confirmed A Devastating Bitcoin Price Bombshell"

And this isn't a bubble pushed by price pumpers?

[Conundrum]

Isn’t a basic tenet of crypto is that it’s controlled by the participants and not a centralized authority to promote freedom?

Now MAGA wants to have it all and some BTC’rs are promoting this as a way to pay off our national debt.

Hmmmm…the founders holding a bunch of BTC are either going to get filthy rich in a currency they were fighting against or remember why they created it and figure out a way to not let a centralized authority control it. What’s it going to be?

[MultiVerse]

Bitcoin bros just want the government to fill their bags. That's it. A bitcoin reserve would serve no useful purpose. The only strategic component is getting any of our enemies to fall for these ridiculous arguments.

So Russia, if you're listening, by all means stop pouring resources into missiles & artillery shells, and buy bitcoin instead. Stocking-up on bitcoin is a sure fire way to watch the asset appreciate—especially true if you hold it forever with diamond hands

[The Nuclear Option]

Pump and pump and pump and pump…

The every increasing price asset that isnt an asset. Wow!

If Trump is in on BTC, surely that is a sign that it’ll fail.

[bobz]

Bitcoin bros just want the government to fill their bags. That's it. A bitcoin reserve would serve no useful purpose.

Yup. The Bitcoin Strategic Reserve idea is blatantly purposeless (except as pure corruption).

One, the point of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is to stabilize supply and price, most specifically to put a lid on future price spikes, either due to temporary supply problems or price manipulation, on an asset that is critical for America's actual commerce economy. The objective of a Strategic Bitcoin reserve is the opposite, to help drive price spikes, and on an asset that isn't needed for general commerce.

And two, if we want to entertain the idea that Bitcoin is, first and foremost, a currency, then it doesn't even matter whether BTC goes up, down, or stabilizes where it is, because things that are transacted in Bitcoin are pegged to an appropriate dollar value, and however many Bitcoins that works out to. For example, a hostage taker is going to demand a ransom roughly based on some dollar value; if BTC is at $300K, they're going to demand a smaller Bitcoin quantity than if BTC is at $30K. If you're doing some internet gambling, your Bitcoin bet is going to be based on the dollar value that you're comfortable with. Obviously that's not true with petroleum; more (or less) expensive gasoline means that your commute and your road trips cost more (or less).