DublinHead54
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,055
Do you believe that there's anything tangible to invest in (as I've yet to hear a single positive statement on btc from you) or you're smarter than everyone else and you feel you're benefiting from all the stupid people that have put some $ in crypto?
Lastly, you asked me to describe what my thoughts were as to how I saw the space play out with regard to bitcoin - going forward. I gave you my best guess (my current guess based on an opinion that is always open to adjustment). I provided you with my thoughts. Given that you've worked on blockchain-related projects, I'd be curious to hear your own view (whether that's about BTC, CBDCs or crypto/blockchain generally).
Personally I think it will be absolutely terrible for stability, as bitcoin is propelled to the moon with this as the catalyst in the next year or so.
In terms of Blockchain Technology, there are lots of interesting Proof of Concepts being proposed, but currently we aren't seeing a whole lot of adoption, I think the cost of implementation for corporations will out weigh the benefits.
Could your share your source please?Indeed, there was a huge drop in venture capital funding for blockchain projects over the last year or two as the early hype and enthusiasm didn't bear fruit. There was over $4B invested via VCs in 2018, but very little actually making it to market.
Could your share your source please?
Thank you
There are a number of platforms that report on VC investment, CBInsight make some of that available without subscription and do regular features on the blockchain space.
Sept. 2017: JPMorgan's Jaime Dimon - "Bitcoin is a fraud and will blow up".
Feb. 2019: JPMorgan launches its own stablecoin.
23 Oct. 2020: JPMorgan in a note to investors - "The potential long-term upside for bitcoin is considerable as it competes more intensely with gold as an 'alternative' currency we believe, given that Millenials would become over time a more important component of investors' universe".
As you can see, there's a link to the article by Business Insider (which isn't a crypto publication). There's no sign of the note itself. As something that wasn't destined for broader dispersal, perhaps they can't publish a copy of the actual note itself.Have you got the actual report? Interested in reading.
As you can see, there's a link to the article by Business Insider (which isn't a crypto publication). There's no sign of the note itself. As something that wasn't destined for broader dispersal, perhaps they can't publish a copy of the actual note itself.
EDIT - This seems to be it -> here.
A couple of other take-aways:
"The market cap of bitcoin would have to rise 10 times from here to match the total private sector investment to gold via ETFs or bars and coins".
"We believe the market value of cryptocurrencies could eventually rise beyond what could be justified by only valuing them as a store of wealth. Cryptocurrencies derive value not only because they serve as stores of wealth but also due to their utility as means of payment."
It is interesting - and it seems to make sense. It's difficult for many to get past the idea of a digital currency rather than a physical currency. From millennial down, that demographic is going to be much more comfortable with and accepting of digital currencies. JPMorgan's Panigirtzoglou referred to precisely that notion back in August -> Bloomberg: 'Older Investors Go for Gold, Younger Ones Bitcoin' .Interesting that he has called out millennials as one of the reasons for the potential long term. This is one of the first articles I've seen consider a social aspect.
From millenial down, that demographic is going to be much more comfortable with and accepting of digital currencies.
Many got burnt due to over-exuberance in the dot com crash. However, in citing that example Brendan, you've never acknowledged the incredible technology that came out of it or the gains made by those that had backed (or went on to back) technological behemoths such as google, etc.As indeed they were with the dot.com boom and any other fashionable hot air.
I don't have any issue whatsoever with the suggestion of a need for caution. What I do take issue with is the consistent claim that there isn't one single tangible advantage to decentralised cryptocurrency. That doesn't make for a reasonable interpretation of it to my mind.You will just have to get burnt to realise that this is all nonsense.
Many got burnt due to over-exuberance in the dot com crash.
This isn't in any way exclusive to crypto/blockchain. The investment aspect of every new technology goes through a hype cycle. There's no disagreement there.The common feature is the abandonment of rationality.
And a bit of over-exuberance as well.
I am sure that I have suggested it before but read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_Popular_Delusions_and_the_Madness_of_Crowds
That's a discussion that we've already had - the normal rules don't apply OR they're the normal rules as they apply to the determination of the fair price of gold.Abandoning any of the rules of finance or investment analysis.
I don't maintain complete exposure to crypto. However, as it stands today, I also don't share the same thesis as you do (I.e. bitcoin will go to zero -it's just a matter of when). My belief is that we will see further 80% corrections as it progresses. 2017/18 wasn't the first such occasion. However, it appears to me that we're also heading higher.It's shocking for me to be able to sit here watching these things repeating themselves. The difference now is that we have a very good contemporaneous record of it. You will be able to look back in n years and say "How could I have been so stupid? I was a millionaire in Bitcoin and I could have cashed out!"
I don't think you are in any way understanding the proposition at hand. We've been over the intrinsic value debate so I won't labour it here.I am sure that I have recognised that there is some application for crytpto just as there is for paper cheques. It does not mean that the cheques have any intrinsic value.
So the point is that they weren't wrong in terms of the proposition. They were wrong in terms of over-exuberance (or at least a proportion of them were).And of course people made money investing in tech shares. I have not disputed that.
We've had that discussion - so there's little point in re-opening it other than to say that I disagree. Halving the mining reward isn't increasing the supply.I don't know if you were around then. But a share split could result in the share price increasing. Complete madness. The same with bitcoin. They increase the supply and some of the enthusiasts twist that around to say that the supply is reduced.
I do - against the background of a fixed supply asset with an overall upward trajectory.But if you see an 80% fall coming, then fair play to you. I see a 100% fall coming.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?