Well, from my understanding, it seems more like the "megacorps" are conceding and joining Bitcoin, rather than the other way around.
Bitcoin is still the same (mostly) it was a decade ago, so who/what changed in order to make the ETFs happen? It doesn't seem to have been the protocol at least.
I dunno, a decade ago people were still acting like Bitcoin was a currency and making apps and signing up coffee shops and talking about how if the entire global GDP of $45T went through Bitcoin, each Bitcoin would therefore be worth $2 million.
Now it's just, an asset, that's worth money, for reasons?
I think that's OK? What something is used for does sometimes change after it's been deployed.
What was once a network for universities to communicate and share information, became something much more than that, for better or worse, as one example.
Not sure if counting it as a currency, asset, technology or whatever changes anything regarding if Bitcoin ETFs are a "win" for Bitcoin or not.
> Now it's just, an asset, that's worth money, for reasons?
The total cluelessness belied here in an effort to discount bitcoin as though it's unthinkable that anyone would want it is such a silly posture to take.
Before the transaction pool wasn't crowded, now it is because it's highly valued around the globe.
It's a vehicle for scarcity, and functions like a money or foundational asset similar to a US treasury which serves as the base asset for the USD (along with gold to some extent until the federal government debased those holdings through profligate spending). In some sense a US treasury is a token, it's as money by banks, which is probably how bitcoin could end up, while also being a much more transparent system that individual can use to some extent though not "for buying a coffee".
Coffee shops don't accept gold bars either, yet gold has certainly been money (not so much these days).
> Coffee shops don't accept gold bars either, yet gold has certainly been money (not so much these days).
This is true but it's largely because of the logistics. It's not that coffee shops don't want gold, it's just that it's too inconvenient to accept it. Bitcoin, on the other hand, is incredibly easy to accept. And unlike gold, Bitcoin can't be counterfeited. I know, in the USA at least, "digital gold" is the current narrative. But "daily currency" is just around the corner.
What I'm saying is that bitcoin mostly serves as a reserve asset and store of value, and as a unit of account it's great. For daily transactions and payments you end up relying on layer2 options (again totally in favor of those but there's a nuance to this since bigoted people jump at that aspect and say it "disproves" bitcoin) which is somewhat different than saying you're using bitcoin, it's a roundabout way of using bitcoin much like no one pays for things with US treasuries, but they do use notes which derive their value from treasuries.
> Now it's just, an asset, that's worth money, for reasons?
Wrong. There are multiple narratives for Bitcoin. I'd argue the most popular narrative in the United States today is that it is digital gold. But if you follow closely, a LOT is happening on the currency front. The digital gold narrative will converge with the daily currency narrative in the next ~2 years, I'd estimate.
These funds run out of things to pump and get cut out off? Just because they offer instrument, does not mean they aren't there only to make money on their cut.
Bitcoin's main function is to shut down the central banking scam - to separate money and state. If BlackRock try to fractional reserve their bitcoin holdings, they will be risking a "bank run"-fuelled bankruptcy which are what used to keep the traditional fractional reserve banking scam in check, before the berth of the infinite money printers of the central banks (e.g. formation of the Federal Reserve).
Uncorrelated is the key word IMHO. And I wouldn't say it is liquid, but that's a good thing here IMHO too.
A lot of asset management is for pensions. This means that long term stability is quite important, and when designing portfolios negative or neutral correlations are highly desired (square deviation sigma goes down with weighted sum of correlation coefficients here [1]).
One one hand all companies rely on energy, electricity and gas and oil. To transform matter, to transport goods. Despite being a few percent GDP, energy is a multiplier/enabler of economic activity. Electricity's price is also being defined at the margin by peaker gas plants. And gas price is also highly linked to oil.
On the other hand, Bitcoins being mostly 'hodled' their price would be greatly defined by the block rewards. Which cost of is function of electrical scarcity. The highest the electricity price, the more it cost to produce the same amount of Bitcoin as per the consensus hash rate adjustments.
It's not perfect analysis, and I have not crunched the numbers; but I would not be surprised for Bitcoin to have negative or neutral correlations to a lot of assets because of energy.
I don't think energy prices are important for BTC. If energy prices rise and it becomes unaffordable to mine, the network will adjust the difficulty level. The only input that matters for BTC performance is demand.
Looking at some charts overlaying Nasdaq with Bitcoin I would not be so sure about uncorrelated. High liquidity might also be doubtful at least when large positions are liquidated...
26 comments
[ 5.1 ms ] story [ 65.2 ms ] threadBitcoin is still the same (mostly) it was a decade ago, so who/what changed in order to make the ETFs happen? It doesn't seem to have been the protocol at least.
Now it's just, an asset, that's worth money, for reasons?
What was once a network for universities to communicate and share information, became something much more than that, for better or worse, as one example.
Not sure if counting it as a currency, asset, technology or whatever changes anything regarding if Bitcoin ETFs are a "win" for Bitcoin or not.
The total cluelessness belied here in an effort to discount bitcoin as though it's unthinkable that anyone would want it is such a silly posture to take.
Before the transaction pool wasn't crowded, now it is because it's highly valued around the globe.
It's a vehicle for scarcity, and functions like a money or foundational asset similar to a US treasury which serves as the base asset for the USD (along with gold to some extent until the federal government debased those holdings through profligate spending). In some sense a US treasury is a token, it's as money by banks, which is probably how bitcoin could end up, while also being a much more transparent system that individual can use to some extent though not "for buying a coffee".
Coffee shops don't accept gold bars either, yet gold has certainly been money (not so much these days).
This is true but it's largely because of the logistics. It's not that coffee shops don't want gold, it's just that it's too inconvenient to accept it. Bitcoin, on the other hand, is incredibly easy to accept. And unlike gold, Bitcoin can't be counterfeited. I know, in the USA at least, "digital gold" is the current narrative. But "daily currency" is just around the corner.
Wrong. There are multiple narratives for Bitcoin. I'd argue the most popular narrative in the United States today is that it is digital gold. But if you follow closely, a LOT is happening on the currency front. The digital gold narrative will converge with the daily currency narrative in the next ~2 years, I'd estimate.
A lot of asset management is for pensions. This means that long term stability is quite important, and when designing portfolios negative or neutral correlations are highly desired (square deviation sigma goes down with weighted sum of correlation coefficients here [1]).
One one hand all companies rely on energy, electricity and gas and oil. To transform matter, to transport goods. Despite being a few percent GDP, energy is a multiplier/enabler of economic activity. Electricity's price is also being defined at the margin by peaker gas plants. And gas price is also highly linked to oil.
On the other hand, Bitcoins being mostly 'hodled' their price would be greatly defined by the block rewards. Which cost of is function of electrical scarcity. The highest the electricity price, the more it cost to produce the same amount of Bitcoin as per the consensus hash rate adjustments.
It's not perfect analysis, and I have not crunched the numbers; but I would not be surprised for Bitcoin to have negative or neutral correlations to a lot of assets because of energy.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_portfolio_theory