Why is Bitcoin "digital gold" crashing right now?

Status
Not open for further replies.
This huge MicroStrategy buy-in is wild. I actually think the podcast he did here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JibXLTDaj50&ab_channel=StephanLivera is better than the one tecate linked. It's more to the point and he's goes into more detail on some of the aspects.

DublinBay the time horizon on this is way longer than 6 months, he's seeing this as staying in bitcoin indefinitely. 500m is a huge warchest for this company and they don't expect to need the 425m that is in bitcoin anytime soon barring exceptional circumstances. He also says he accepts that it may fall 50% because it may rise 1000%.

One of the really interesting parts of the podcast starts about 26 minutes where he highlights that since it's a publicly traded company he had to get all the officers and directors on baord with the decision, it's fascinating to listen to him speak about this.

It's an hour long but I highly recommend the podcast episode, it's a great listen.
 
Tecate you are missing the point, I am not talking about the liquidity of Bitcoin, I am talking about the liquidity of the business. A treasury function helps maintain Liquidity and thus should be investing in assets with low volatility.
Given that none of these public companies have placed ALL reserves in bitcoin, then you're not talking about liquidity at all then - you're talking about the volatility of an asset...as EmmDee clarifies ->
EmmDee said:
The liquidity comment is, I think, one of volatility of the asset price rather than liquidity of the asset.

The fact you didn't answer the straightforward question of the risk associated with $100, shows you are not willing to do anything other than back Bitcoin in every single situation.
Not havin' that. I have cited/acknowledged a whole host of shortcomings of bitcoin over the course of discussions here - over the course of a couple of years. What makes no sense is that you're referring to volatility and I acknowledged the volatility of bitcoin. You suggested that there was an investment aspect to these decisions to hold bitcoin reserves and I agreed with you. I'm not sure what more you want.

Notwithstanding that, I tried to encourage you to check out the rationale of Michael Saylor (and others) in their thinking here. Sure, bitcoin is volatile - but there are concerns surrounding the dollar. The two posters who followed you have done that and seem to have a better grasp of it on that basis.

I suggest if you can't answer this question, you don't understand financial markets.
I posed that question to you! You accuse me of backing bitcoin blindly yet it's you I'm trying to encourage to also identify the current risk with the USD (whereas you are just considering bitcoin volatility risk exclusively).

It is no different to if I start promoting Tesla stock as the saviour of every financial situation.
Ok, then. Where have I stated that bitcoin is 'the saviour of every financial situation'?

I'd suggest following Dazed In Pontoon's podcast recommendation. Saylor sets out his rationale - and his fears of loss in holding USD right now.
 
Last edited:
DublinBay the time horizon on this is way longer than 6 months, he's seeing this as staying in bitcoin indefinitely. 500m is a huge warchest for this company and they don't expect to need the 425m that is in bitcoin anytime soon barring exceptional circumstances. He also says he accepts that it may fall 50% because it may rise 1000%.
And it's on this basis that those that view the digital asset positively can see themselves beyond the volatility issue - by taking a low time preference.
 
And it's on this basis that those that view the digital asset positively can see themselves beyond the volatility issue - by taking a low time preference.

I am a proponent of Bitcoin, but I am able to step back and critique it, much to often technological developments are seen as the be-all and end-all. I feel through your discussions on this thread you try to defend Bitcoin against every critique. This often leads to cherry picked examples on both your side and from contributors against. Two firms making investments is a drop in the ocean, I could easily say Bitcoin is not going to be widely adopted citing the example of Overstock that allow (not sure if they still do) users to buy in bitcoin, but only a tiny % of revenues are actually from Bitcoin. Or I could argue

Whilst Bitcoin has benefits and is an interesting development, there are social, political, cultural and economic aspects that impact the success of it.

Choosing a long term view on Bitcoin, is an investment decision, I would not purchase Bitcoin to manage my liquidity or liabilities over the short term. Why? Because it is a fact that it is a volatile asset, so I can be less certain on the future price vs I can on the dollar or for example Oil, a very large market that trades on futures.

The volatility you refer to in terms of the USD is against other currencies if I hold USD and my liabilities are in USD then the volatility is irrelevant. If I hold USD and my liabilities are in EUR, I can hedge that via the very large liquid market. The hedging market in Bitcoin is not huge and I have observed large bid/offer spreads, I don't have exact figures but it is fair to assume the FX derivative market of hedging BTC against fair currencies is tiny compared to that of G7 currencies.

In this case, specifically, I was responding to your article you posted most recently on the premise of BTC being used as a treasury asset, My opinion is a firm buying BTC is making a trade with a long term view and not using it as a short term, which EmmDee clarified this firm is doing. This to me is no different than the same firm saying they are going to invest 250m in Tesla Stock.

To add, my interpretation was you were suggesting Bitcoin be used as a treasury asset, whereas the press release clarifies it is an investment. My argument is that BTC is not a short term investment, I don't have any argument against Investment managers trying to find some yield and investing in BTC as part of their strategy. I don't think this goes anyway to help adoption of BTC as a currency, but does help legitimize it as an investment.
 
Last edited:
@tecate if I owe you $100 in 6 months, what's riskier putting $100 cash in a bank account, or buying $100 in Bitcoin?
Why respond to a question with a question? Go back and answer the question that was posed to you and thereafter, I can respond (although I would contend it's ground I've covered already).

I am a proponent of Bitcoin, but I am able to step back and critique it, much to often technological developments are seen as the be-all and end-all. I feel through your discussions on this thread you try to defend Bitcoin against every critique.
Give yerself a pat on the back. Precisely as I told you, over the course of three years of discussion on here, I have cited/acknowledged many facets of bitcoin in its current state which are problematic. You didn't dispute this - because the posts are there. Everyone carries an inherent bias - but if you're telling me that I'm not being objective, you'll have to prove it. Your recent posts do no such thing.

This often leads to cherry picked examples on both your side and from contributors against.
The discussion has very much gotten entrenched. In my view that's largely due to the ridicule that was on display ref. bitcoin. However, whilst it has a long way to go, bitcoin/crypto has only gotten stronger since then.

Two firms making investments is a drop in the ocean,
Acknowledged that it's just a drop in the ocean. If the inference is that I've suggested otherwise, then prove it. That said, if you think it's not worthy of consideration, I disagree. These are the first public companies to take this approach - and so, it covers new ground. Will others follow them? Maybe they will or maybe they won't. However, they're more likely to spend a bit more time considering it - seeing as others have been bold enough to go that direction.

I could easily say Bitcoin is not going to be widely adopted citing the example of Overstock that allow (not sure if they still do) users to buy in bitcoin, but only a tiny % of revenues are actually from Bitcoin. Or I could argue
As I alluded to in my last post, you seem to be looking for an argument or a reason to disagree when there is none. Firstly, there's no connection between these examples and your overstock example. The latter has to do with a day to day transactional use case. Over the course of my time here, I've consistently agreed that bitcoin is hamstrung in that regard (at least until layer 2 solutions are developed further and gather more momentum). In which case, what's the argument about? You seem to be trying to contrive one.
The current discussion (ref. MicroStrategy/Square/Stone Ridge) is valid as they're the first movers in this context. You're criticising me for suggesting that this type of use case is widespread or will be widespread when I've said no such thing. So much for 'stepping back'.

Whilst Bitcoin has benefits and is an interesting development, there are social, political, cultural and economic aspects that impact the success of it.
Territory I've gotten to long before you. I'm on record with examples that feed into those very aspects - and how they could hold back the further development of bitcoin. Yet you say I'm the one that's not objective.

Choosing a long term view on Bitcoin, is an investment decision,
Over a couple of posts already, I agreed that there was an investment aspect to these decisions - but you seem to be hell bent on finding a point of disagreement.

I would not purchase Bitcoin to manage my liquidity or liabilities over the short term. Why? Because it is a fact that it is a volatile asset, so I can be less certain on the future price vs I can on the dollar or for example Oil, a very large market that trades on futures.
Again, I've never disputed the inherent volatility of bitcoin (save to remind people that it will dissipate over the longer term and there's already evidence of that). As regards your opinion here - it's exactly that. I invited you over a couple of posts to listen to Saylor and the rationale he presents on that. Another poster did so also. It seems that you haven't. Could it be that it's you that's guilty of what you accuse me of - and you're not 'stepping back' far enough?
Aside from all that, you seem to make this case disregarding the risk asymmetry at play here. Furthermore, it's interesting that you refer to volatility and oil in the same breath given its history in 2020.

The volatility you refer to in terms of the USD is against other currencies if I hold USD and my liabilities are in USD then the volatility is irrelevant. If I hold USD and my liabilities are in EUR, I can hedge that via the very large liquid market. The hedging market in Bitcoin is not huge and I have observed large bid/offer spreads, I don't have exact figures but it is fair to assume the FX derivative market of hedging BTC against fair currencies is tiny compared to that of G7 currencies.
Saylor talks about precisely this - and if you genuinely have an interest, then go and listen to him and critique him on that basis. He doesn't arrive at the same conclusion as you do in terms of avoiding usd risk.
On bitcoin futures, that market has developed in leaps and bounds over the course of the past 12 months. Can you point to these wayward spreads?

In this case, specifically, I was responding to your article you posted most recently on the premise of BTC being used as a treasury asset, My opinion is a firm buying BTC is making a trade with a long term view and not using it as a short term, which EmmDee clarified this firm is doing. This to me is no different than the same firm saying they are going to invest 250m in Tesla Stock.
Once again, listen to Saylor's rationale. It's not as simple as you present it.

To add, my interpretation was you were suggesting Bitcoin be used as a treasury asset, whereas the press release clarifies it is an investment. My argument is that BTC is not a short term investment, I don't have any argument against Investment managers trying to find some yield and investing in BTC as part of their strategy.
This in the same breath as you go on about cherry picking? This is the title of MicroStrategy's press release ->

'MicroStrategy Adopts Bitcoin as Primary Treasury Reserve Asset'

Those are not my words - those are MicroStrategy's. If you take issue with this, it's all the more reason you should go and listen to Saylor's rationale for this decision.
Now you're the one trying to oversimplify to meet your own narrative here. There are several factors at play here - hedging usd risk, use of bitcoin proportionately as a treasury asset where it's not the only treasury asset held and where there's room for a company to do so/size that asset holding responsibly, etc. The last point is that they're factoring in assymetric risk - which is the upside/investment aspect you refer to.

I don't think this goes anyway to help adoption of BTC as a currency, but does help legitimize it as an investment.
We were not and we are not discussing the adoption of bitcoin as a currency over the course of this entire thread - let alone since discussion of MicroStrategy/Square/Stone Ridge's use of bitcoin in some way as a treasury reserve asset. Why would you bring it up in this context?
 
Last edited:
Why respond to a question with a question? Go back and answer the question that was posed to you and thereafter, I can respond (although I would contend it's ground I've covered already).

Tecate, this is the question I asked in which you responded with a question......why do you refuse to answer it?

I'll answer yours, for simplicity I'll assume that I held the $100 in a 0% interest account, so the purchasing power of that $100 will have reduced by the inflation rate.
 
Well, volatility continues to decrease year on year (admittedly a multi year process still). The argument could be made that in 2020, there's a much greater likelihood of major usd volatility than previously. There's also greater upside potential with bitcoin (asymmetric risk). Click on the podcast link in post #467 above to hear Michael Saylor's (MicroStrategy) rationale for buying into bitcoin.

Tecate, I have not read the full 25 pages of this thread in detail, as in my opinion there is little benefit to be gained, as I am fully versed in Blockchain (pros and cons), and for the most part I side with your optimism. However, what I infer is the updates posting is an almost 'I told you so' to those that critiqued Bitcoin on this forum.

The comment above is one that I find a problem with, you are presenting a case of Bitcoin being less volatile than the USD (potentially). I just can't see objectively how you arrive at that and it is flawed on so many levels.

I also don't see why I can't reference BTC as a currency, because that is still the intended use, of which investments like this are having the opposite effect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leo
Tecate, this is the question I asked in which you responded with a question......why do you refuse to answer it?
Firstly there's no tactical move not to address anything including your question so don't suggest that there is.
The answer is that the usd is an established sovereign currency whilst bitcoin continues to carve out its place in the world. Bitcoin remains the more volatile. Notwithstanding that, we're in exceptional times with a level of money printing never seen before. Now I know at this point you've listened to Saylor and you know what level of debasement he was talking in terms of, right??
On that volatility, time preference has been pointed out to you by me and another poster. Zoom out and you see that bitcoin has been the best performing asset of the past decade. As it goes through ita first crisis test, its the best performing asset of 2020 also.
Alongside the volatility that you're focusing on, these guys are calculating in the assemetry of that risk - you're not it seems.

That's your answer.
I'll answer yours, for simplicity I'll assume that I held the $100 in a 0% interest account, so the purchasing power of that $100 will have reduced by the inflation rate.
So that could be 2% or it could be something else. That's why these guys hedge.
 
Tecate, I have not read the full 25 pages of this thread in detail, as in my opinion there is little benefit to be gained, as I am fully versed in Blockchain (pros and cons), and for the most part I side with your optimism.
You're free to do whatever you like up until you accuse someone else of being disingenuous in their contributions to a thread you have not even read. As was pointed out to you, I've acknowledged a series of shortcomings related to bitcoin.

However, what I infer is the updates posting is an almost 'I told you so' to those that critiqued Bitcoin on this forum.
Are you in the mind reading business now? Prove it.
I posted those most recent items because they're significant in my view. Everyone can form their own opinion in that regard.

The comment above is one that I find a problem with, you are presenting a case of Bitcoin being less volatile than the USD (potentially). I just can't see objectively how you arrive at that and it is flawed on so many levels.
Posting on mobile so its not convenient for me to check back but I don't think i made a whole lot of commentary when posting up info on moves by those three public companies recently.
You're entitled to an opinion the same as the next guy. If you can't see the logic these guys used to justify those bitcoin positions, maybe you should examine the rationale they based said decisions on.
I also don't see why I can't reference BTC as a currency, because that is still the intended use, of which investments like this are having the opposite effect.
Because its completely out of context. This thread as a whole doesn't consider that use case.
 
Last edited:
Firstly there's no tactical move not to address anything including your question so don't suggest that there is.
The answer is that the usd is an established sovereign currency whilst bitcoin continues to carve out its place in the world. Bitcoin remains the more volatile. Notwithstanding that, we're in exceptional times with a level of money printing never seen before. Now I know at this point you've listened to Saylor and you know what level of debasement he was talking in terms of, right??
On that volatility, time preference has been pointed out to you by me and another poster. Zoom out and you see that bitcoin has been the best performing asset of the past decade. As it goes through ita first crisis test, its the best performing asset of 2020 also.
Alongside the volatility that you're focusing on, these guys are calculating in the assemetry of that risk - you're not it seems.

That's your answer.
So that could be 2% or it could be something else. That's why these guys hedge.

I don't want to debate the point, but you didn't answer the question, it really should be a one-word answer (Cash or BTC). The simple fact is BTC is the riskier trade over a 6 month period than holding cash at this point in time. A debate on the time preference of BTC is irrelevant in the context of the question I asked, because I defined the time as 6 months. I asked this question because I was questioning the validity of BTC to manage cash / liquidity position in the firm, it has been clarified that the firm is making a long term investment with excess reserve in BTC.

The question does not even need to use BTC, replace BTC with $100 Tesla stock, what would be your answer?

We aren't really in exceptional times, there is a tendency to believe that our present is changing at unprecedented times and we are facing all these new problems that never existed before. This rhetoric is often to use to support why we need technology and we must adopt all these new technologies. A quick scan of history will tell you otherwise.

That is why this thread is pretty pointless, a simple question is not given a straight answer. The rhetoric is "Bitcoin is the future and if you don't believe in the technology you are a naysayer'. You have admitted there are flaws which is progress, but taking a step back, I may have missed the point of why you posted the article a few days? I inferred it as you to show the naysayers that it is starting to be adopted in firms? I was simply trying to make sure people don't blindly adopt BTC, just because there is a technology solution it doesn't mean we need to change, we don't always need to be 'solutionizing' our perceived problems.

It is healthy to debate, and I am sure over the 25 pages opinions are unchanged so there is nothing more to add. I'll leave with a quote most appropriate

"If you think technology can solve our problems, you don't understand technology and you don't understand our problems" Mazzucato
 
Last edited:
I don't want to debate the point, but you didn't answer the question, it really should be a one-word answer (Cash or BTC).
That's my answer and my humble opinion. Perhaps you'd prefer to write the answer for me.

A debate on the time preference of BTC is irrelevant in the context of the question I asked, because I defined the time as 6 months.
When enforcing narrow parameters like that, sure. However, outside of those narrow parameters, it's beneficial to have an appreciation of time preference when considering the volatility of bitcoin.

I asked this question because I was questioning the validity of BTC to manage cash / liquidity position in the firm,
Have any of these public companies moved to 100% btc reserves? Has anyone here suggested that they should?

it has been clarified that the firm is making a long term investment with excess reserve in BTC.
See above, has anyone here suggested any such company should move to 100% btc reserves?

We aren't really in exceptional times, there is a tendency to believe that our present is changing at unprecedented times and we are facing all these new problems that never existed before. This rhetoric is often to use to support why we need technology and we must adopt all these new technologies. A quick scan of history will tell you otherwise.
Rhetoric indeed.:rolleyes:In terms of money printing we are - and that is what I was referring to.

That is why this thread is pretty pointless, a simple question is not given a straight answer.
Why participate then? Reading what you've just written is a waste of time. Your question was answered - you just don't like the answer.

The rhetoric is "Bitcoin is the future and if you don't believe in the technology you are a naysayer'.
If you're attributing that to me, then mind-reading school didn't go so well for you. It does seem to assist your narrative though to try and claim that.

You have admitted there are flaws which is progress, but taking a step back
I've freely cited such shortcomings long since. In that context there has been no change of views despite what you're trying to suggest.

I may have missed the point of why you posted the article a few days? I inferred it as you to show the naysayers that it is starting to be adopted in firms?
I wasn't and didn't make any specific reference to naysayers in recent postings about MicroStrategy, Square and Stone Ridge using btc as a reserve asset. Your wayward mind-reading isn't helpful here.

I was simply trying to make sure people don't blindly adopt BTC,
In the context of this particular use (major public companies using btc as a reserve asset), you give this thread far too much credit if that was your concern.

just because there is a technology solution it doesn't mean we need to change, we don't always need to be 'solutionizing' our perceived problems.
Just in case you think that's a point you're arguing with me on, it's not.
 
@tecate if I owe you $100 in 6 months, what's riskier putting $100 cash in a bank account, or buying $100 in Bitcoin?

The opposite is the same. If I owe you 1BTC in 6months, whats riskier, holding 1BTC in a wallet or buying $$ with your Bitcoin?

Volatility works both ways. Clearly BTC is a volatile asset measured against fluctuating US$. Alternatively, it is the US$ that is a volatile asset against sound money like BTC.
Bitcoin has, durability, portability, scarcity, divisibility, fungibility, and is decentralised and trustless currency.
The US$ is just a mish-mash of central bank keyboard strokes and manipulated government IOU's.
 
The opposite is the same. If I owe you 1BTC in 6months, whats riskier, holding 1BTC in a wallet or buying $$ with your Bitcoin?

Volatility works both ways. Clearly BTC is a volatile asset measured against fluctuating US$. Alternatively, it is the US$ that is a volatile asset against sound money like BTC.
Bitcoin has, durability, portability, scarcity, divisibility, fungibility, and is decentralised and trustless currency.
The US$ is just a mish-mash of central bank keyboard strokes and manipulated government IOU's.

From my perspective there is no risk, I get 1 BTC regardless. You take the risk on whether to buy 1 BTC now or wait for 6 months and deliver me 1 BTC at the future price. From your perspective buying dollars is riskier because you have agreed to deliver 1BTC.

Why is decentralized good? Why is a trustless currency good? Are we suddenly all going to lose faith in the United States or the European Union? History would suggest not. I've critiqued all these points (I work in the industry), and I don't see an overwhelming reason for BTC to replace Central Bank issued Currencies.

What I find amusing, is decentralized is touted as a benefit, but it is not decentralized, China controls the vast majority of the mining pool.

It is a great story though.
 
From my perspective there is no risk

It's the same risk. If you give me 1BTC to return to you in 6 months and I buy $10,000 with it today, I'm taking a risk that it wont cost me $20,000 to buy the 1BTC that I need to return to you.
It's the exact same risk just reversed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top